Replace the US Constitution

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/TeenVogue/status/1400453493551337481

Discuss.

[dead0man]

The red avatars who like to complain about the source are going to have a field day with this....unless they think the US Constitution should be replaced to fight racism.  Then they will ignore that this is from Teen Vogue.

[Damocles]

Generally in favor, but this is mealy-mouthed as f#%k. It’s also from Teen Vogue, lol.

[Terlylane]

Replace it with what?

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Replace it with what?

 

[ultraviolet]

Maybe, but not to “fix the racism problem.”

[Chips]

No. I think the constitution is fine where it is.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Nah

[Geoffrey Howe]

I don't see how replacing the Constitution would achieve this. If it is to eliminate individual racism, it is perfectly obvious why a constitution can't do this. If it is do eliminate "systemic" racism (I'm still not really sure what this means), I don't know what you would do in addition to what there is now. Perhaps an affirmative duty to be "anti-racist," but I don't see why a new constitution is required for this. It would be just as difficult (well much more difficult) to create a new constitution as to amend the existing one.

Can a constitution be enforceable against private, as opposed to state, actors? Perhaps they are confusing legislation with a constitution.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't see how replacing the Constitution would achieve this. If it is to eliminate individual racism, it is perfectly obvious why a constitution can't do this. If it is do eliminate "systemic" racism (I'm still not really sure what this means), I don't know what you would do in addition to what there is now. Perhaps an affirmative duty to be "anti-racist," but I don't see why a new constitution is required for this. It would be just as difficult (well much more difficult) to create a new constitution as to amend the existing one.

Can a constitution be enforceable against private, as opposed to state, actors? Perhaps they are confusing legislation with a constitution.

Similar to how you can’t legislate morality, you can’t legislate belief systems or prejudices into or out of existence. You can only provide incentives for good behavior (emphasis) and punish bad behavior.

Yet agreeing on what behavior is good - what is right and wrong - is a sociocultural process, not a political or constitutional one. It’s about shared values and norms, not laws and regulations which are themselves a reflection of said values and norms. That is what a lot of people don’t seem to understand.

[MarkD]

This makes as much sense as saying that we need to replace the U.S. Constitution in order to ensure religious freedom.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to ensure racial equality and to ensure that state governments would not violate "rights." The main trouble with the Fourteenth was that those goals were stated too briefly and vaguely. As my signature suggests, we need to replace the Fourteenth Amendment withy a set of new rules that more clearly defines the rights of the people and which kinds of discrimination are unacceptable. The brief and vague rules of the existing Fourteenth Amendment give the federal judiciary too much discretion in choosing which laws to "strike down." The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has produced a system in which the federal courts define the rights of the people and define when people deserve to be treated equally. But this system makes federal judges too powerful, and it is too subjective. We need to replace the Fourteenth Amendment with rules that are more objective.

Here is my suggestion for how to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment.

[All Along The Watchtower]

On a serious note, I genuinely find ideas like this disturbing—and their increasing traction within some progressive circles downright horrifying.

[AGA]

Lol

[HisGrace]

Despite indirectly complaining about how the current constitution apparently isn't guided by human rights, I have a feeling their new constitution would have a lot fewer rights in it. Buh-buy freedom of speech, press, association, property, and probably religion and a lot of protections for the accused as well. Not even going to get into the right to bear arms. 

Perhaps an affirmative duty to be "anti-racist,"

That's what the 14th Amendment is.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Perhaps an affirmative duty to be "anti-racist,"

That's what the 14th Amendment is.

No, no, no; it’s not good enough not to be racist (“deny equal protection of the laws”), you have to be actively anti-racist!

[Real Texan Politics]

Another day, another stupid take from the God-awful Teen Vogue.

[Senator Spark]

I don't think so. We could replace the document all that we like, but if we don't enforce those principles into fruition it becomes a meaningless endeavor to rewrite a document.

[The Mikado]

A Constitutional Convention today with, say, three delegates from each state like you'd expect would be an overwhelming GOP pack and we'd get a constitution that banned abortion and made Christianity the state religion.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Look, here is the ideal new constitution:

1. You're not the f**king military. Why the f**k do you need an AK or (Texas) a f**king tank.
2. America does need to be saved. From you f**king religious nuts! People do whatever they want. Freedom of religion!
3. Racism is bad and racists are batsh*t crazy.
4. The electoral college is a f**king relic of the 18th century. All votes count the same. Illegalize.
5. Everyone who is a citizen will vote. No exceptions. However, people should be required to say who the President is before voting. Those who answer wrong are prohibited.

[Karenthecomputer]

We already have the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments.