Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

August 11th, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

9 Comments so far.
Add yours.

A new US Constitution

In addition to having my RSS reader packed full of news and poliBlogs, I frequent a lot of design-related blogs as well. Yesterday, Signals vs. Noise one of my latest RSS additions and blog of 37signals, creators of interesting products such as Basecamp and Backpack an interesting question I would like to hear Coming Anarchy readers comment on:

Who would write the new constitution?
Assuming the US needed a new constitution, who are the top few living people you’d like to see help draft it? I’ll throw out a few for starters… John McCain, Jerry Brown, Peggy Noonan, Ralph Nader, Judith Sheindlin, Christopher Hitchens, Dean Kamen, Harold E. Ford, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Bill Clinton, Alan Simpson, Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, Chris Matthews, Alan Keyes, Brian Greene, Joel Osteen, Meg Whitman, plus 5 randomly chosen citizens.

Comments to this entry

Dan
August 11, 2005
11:29 pm
As long as it begins with "The Right to Blog is the only fundemental Liberty. All other liberties are derived from it," I don't care who writes it ;)
Curzon
August 12, 2005
2:01 am
Change our Constitution? I can think of nothing worse. In today's highly polarized, interest group-driven politics, everything from the tiniest phrases to the major clauses would be twisted by people with agendas, hidden and otherwise.

And jeez... five random citizens?! Who are these people kidding -- talk about idealist. We'd have all sorts of absurd provisions about people who didn't know crap about rights, law, the responsibilities of the federal government, etc. Sorry Dan, but your comment proves my point!! Unless you're a lawyer you just shouldn't be involved in the process. (Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Morris, Jay, Hamilton... these people were all practicing attorneys.)

One reason our Constitution is so good is because it was written by a number of people who, at the end of the day, were willing to settle for a lot less than what they wanted because they knew what was at stake -- a divided, unstable, war-prone shamble of republics if they didn't hold together, and threatening European powers waiting to gobble them up. No such external threat exists today (terror doesn't even come close to the same level of danger), and a redrafting would be dangerously focused on internal politics.

Our constitution is great because it is a living document that has allowed slow social liberalization to take place without much social upheaval. To go Churchillian, our current Constitution is the worst except for any other that we could possibly have.
Simon
August 12, 2005
2:06 am
I'm with Curzon, and it's not even my constitution. The genius of the system is it's ability to change and adapt. How likely is that in any modern rewrite?
Dan
August 12, 2005
2:07 am
"Sorry Dan, but your comment proves my point!!"

LOL

How dare you question the wisdom of a Blog-centric consitution?!?

Life, liberty, property, appeal to bankruptcy, the banishment of the poll tax -- all but whims compared to the Right to Blog!
Mutantfrog
August 12, 2005
3:40 am
That's a mighty stupid list of people.
Isn't Christopher Hitchens a foreigner?
Isn't Alan Keyes an idiot?
Isn't Steve Jobs an megalomaniacal businessman with no particular sign of having either interest in or respect for either law or other people?
Meg Whitman- the president of eBay? How is that relevant?
Chirol
August 12, 2005
3:49 am
The European Constitution in case in point! Ours shouldn't be touched.
Curzon
August 12, 2005
4:41 am
Thanks for the laugh, Dan.

And to add my own: You fools! Don't you realize this post was written by a * shudder * CANADIAN!
Younghusband
August 12, 2005
5:10 am
Chirol, that is exactly what I was thinking. Also, good comments from Curzon, especially the last one. Dan, your right to blog will always be sacred north of the border, eh!

I think the replies to this post shows how much of a bunch of crotchety old bastards we all are. The question didn't ask if it should be re-written, it _assumed_ for the sake of argument it needed to be re-written. Counterfactuals anyone?
Mutantfrog
August 12, 2005
6:14 pm
"The European Constitution in case in point!"

Totally. It may have been well-intentioned, but 500 pages isn't a constitution-it's a whole damn legal code!