It’s fine if you think this, but I don’t agree with any of it.
Which makes you wrong. Which is your right, I guess 🤷
It’s good that the constitution is old
Nope. Literally nothing beneficial about that
and remains relevant
Does it, though? Or is that just something you’ve convinced yourself of to avoid confronting the reality that you’re basing a 21st century society on the ideas of 1700s slave owners?
it can protect us from the hysteria of the times
Clearly it CAN’T, as evidenced by this gestures at everything
For example, a lot of morons have convinced themselves that the first amendment is a bad thing. I would hate for this ‘new document’ of yours to be made without protections for freedom of speech.
Fun fact: such morons exist in all countries, yet almost all other constitutions DO include free speech protections.
To pretend that the First Amendment is somehow unique and impossible to replicate is so obtuse that I’m beginning to doubt if you know the first thing about how any of this works 🤦
The issues preventing us from making amendments would still be present trying to create a brand new constitution
Yes, I specifically addressed that already. Those issues would need to be dealt with first. Which has nothing to do with whether or not sticking with the centuries old decrees of slave owners is in itself a good idea.
I wouldn’t trust the current government,
Me neither. That it exists in its current condition is exhibit A of the case against insisting on a functionally dead document that’s not fit for the times we live in.
or most of its citizens
How would you know? Under the current system, anywhere from a third to over half of them aren’t ever consulted, or even acknowledged.
to make better decisions than what we have in the Bill of Rights
You sure about that? Other than the second one, which has been obsolete since the US acquired a standing military, all of the 10 first amendments are either present in newer constitutions, routinely violated with impunity by the people in power, or both.
Which makes you wrong. Which is your right, I guess 🤷
Nope. Literally nothing beneficial about that
Does it, though? Or is that just something you’ve convinced yourself of to avoid confronting the reality that you’re basing a 21st century society on the ideas of 1700s slave owners?
Clearly it CAN’T, as evidenced by this gestures at everything
Fun fact: such morons exist in all countries, yet almost all other constitutions DO include free speech protections.
To pretend that the First Amendment is somehow unique and impossible to replicate is so obtuse that I’m beginning to doubt if you know the first thing about how any of this works 🤦
Yes, I specifically addressed that already. Those issues would need to be dealt with first. Which has nothing to do with whether or not sticking with the centuries old decrees of slave owners is in itself a good idea.
Me neither. That it exists in its current condition is exhibit A of the case against insisting on a functionally dead document that’s not fit for the times we live in.
How would you know? Under the current system, anywhere from a third to over half of them aren’t ever consulted, or even acknowledged.
You sure about that? Other than the second one, which has been obsolete since the US acquired a standing military, all of the 10 first amendments are either present in newer constitutions, routinely violated with impunity by the people in power, or both.
You, for example, are a citizen who I would not trust to make better decisions than what went into the Bill of Rights.
You’re not alone, either. Most people I come across I wouldn’t trust to make better decisions.
I’m going to ignore you now. People like you are insufferable and I know you can’t resist another insufferable response.
Goodbye, and good luck.