How many of you would change the constitution of your country if you could?
What country? What would you change? and why?
Discussion
No. United States. Nothing. One of the most perfect documents ever written. Timeless.
It needs to be READ and UNDERSTOOD
By all Citizens and ESPECIALLY Elected Officials.
Playing devils advocate here. If it was so perfect, why did it need amendments? At what point do we know we are truly done adding? Is there more room left?
The Framers of the Constitution provided for the addition of amendments. There is room to add amendments. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
I follow a retired American lawyer, who has quite a different view, which makes more sense to me.
He presents it in many detailed pods, including regarding what #[2]â asks, and describes quite well that the US constitution was deeply flawed from the beginning, and was shown to be completely unworkable and ineffective by their secession war, and many times since:
The Quash: The Arts of Confederation worked. That's why they HAD TO GO.
Episode webpage: https://the-quash.captivate.fm/episode/the-arts-of-confederation-worked-thats-why-they-had-to-go
Media file: https://podcasts.captivate.fm/media/fd185298-b79c-437d-a0d0-9450cf43d633/s2-ep46-ad-art-conf-vs-const.mp3
The Quash: Lincoln DESTROYED the constitution. Period.
Episode webpage: https://the-quash.captivate.fm/episode/lincoln-destroyed-the-constitution-period
I was only able to listen to 30 seconds of the podcast. Do you have one example of a shortcoming of the U.S. Constitution?
Sorry, if 30 seconds is the length of your attention span, itâs a waste of my time to debate your constitution with you.
Constitution 101. Free online course
Hillsdale College
I would always change the constitution to fit the modern times in any country. It would be for the benefit of the many not the few. The only constant is change.
How would we know it is time to change it?
German here: While i am overall relatively happy with our "Grundgesetz" i would like more direct democracy like in switzerland
Theyâre simply not allowed to do that.
By who?
The constitution.
The piece of paper?
đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
The first part of that discussion also seems rather accurate, and shows how brainwashed the majority are with completely illogical, animal-farm nonsense worldwide:
France: be able to fire a president
Then you get the Italian system where (almost) nobody ever finishes a term and you have more governments than years. đ¤Ł
Who would have the power to fire the President?
đ
People of course, as it would be a true democratie. Instead of giving the full power to someone for years (5 in France), the pleb could decide, by vote (referendum), to renew a president.
Nope. Having a document as a backbone is an important element of stability.
Lately I see the same in BTC arguments about block size or high fees. That not changing the protocol on a whim is a strength. For a governmentâs constitution itâs the same.
Glad someone brought BTC up. Indeed we have agreed on a constitution. Change is possible but there are core aspects that have become non negotiable.
Having a core set of rules does not mean the rules are good though. We could stick to FIAT⌠why invent new core rules with BTC?
I agree. The idea of a set of core rules designed to provide stability is essential.
Government constitutions are more like Ethereum rules than Bitcoin, because the former are quite centralised.
ALL governments routinely change or âlegallyâ circumvent their constitutions on a whim, and those who disagree, can neither stop that or fork off, as Americans showed with their secession war, along with many other examples elsewhere.
Absolutely, but my basic argument still holds. Governments should treat their constitutions as if there were immutable (but amendable with great difficulty and high consensus). âShouldâ unfortunately doesnât mean âdoâ.
Great question!
I would add a constitutional right to pay in physical cash and Bitcoin to oppose the #CBDCs.
I would then proceed to rewrite the article about censorship.
We, the Czechs have enough experiences with state controlled censors - we were a communist ruled country.
Our modern constitution say that âcensorship is forbiddenâ, but I would make it more specific because some kind of censhorship is still present. I believe you either have or do not have the freedom of speech and weâre far from it, I can tell.
Great point about allowing BTC while forcing physical FIAT to continue to be accepted. CBDCs should be opposed with âforceâ in all countries.
So, censorship is forbidden yet it happens (selectively I assume). Could you provide an example?
There are many. Facebook is censoring because of EU, so they ignore our constitution on purpose. There is state (or rather EU) finances âfact checkingâ going on, selectively censoring even those claim that canât be at this time and space objectively flagged as true/false and so on. Most of it would be the same as yours - âhate speechâ and âfake newsâ all used to justify a silencing of non-mainstream opposition.
You might try to let chatGPT translate this page for you⌠it is from a czech group which has formed in defense of freedom of speech here in Czech rep.