What updates does the US constitution need? I think if we were to rewrite it today it would become largely the same, maybe with a footer that says “and this time we really mean it”
A lot of people (on HN at least) seem to think it's a problem that the First Amendment only applies to Congress, letting companies like Google or Facebook censor speech as much as they like.
The Second Amendment isn't even written in complete sentences, and we need a room full of scholars to figure out just what exactly they meant by "A well regulated Militia,"
The Third Amendment just seems absurd in the modern day.
Maybe we don't need the Electoral College?
Maybe the President's powers to draft executive orders and pardon people undermines the legislative and judicial branches and should be done away with, given how often they've been abused?
It must be possible to have a more efficient census than through the process required by the Constitution.
It should be possible, in a nation of immigrants, for an immigrant to run for President.
There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Amendments related to voting, yes, but nowhere is voting considered to be a right, as opposed to a privilege.
Do we really need to explicitly make the justice system an exception to the Thirteenth Amendment and banning slavery?
That's all I could think of off the top of my head, not being a constitutional scholar. But it stands to reason that a document as old as the Constitution should be updated more often than it has been.
That constitution was based off of about 2000 years of legal and political theory stretching back at least as far as the Roman Republic, and even the Greek democracies, and written with most of the intervening political history in mind. To say that 200 years makes that much of a difference needs a lot more justification than "it stands to reason".
People say technology is a factor in why we should update the document: I would respond that the human nature which necessitated the clauses assembled in that document haven't changed. Technology has simply accelerated the negative (and positive) effect of the same human tendencies the constitution is already attempting to protect against.
I would suggest that the maxim that's been mentioned on here recently, "don't tear down a fence until you understand why it's been put up" would apply. And the understanding of why the constitution is the way it is requires a breadth of reading that includes Seneca, Plato, and many others. Not to mention the documented discussions between the folks who wrote it.
As someone who designs distributed systems for a living, I can say very confidently that the electorate system is a very good idea indeed.
Why risk the entire system if a single small part is corrupted?
All the redundancy with none of the downsides of the Electoral College.
Protests against Electoral College are a distraction from possible and substantial reforms, like ranked-choice voting and ending interstate crosscheck and similar disenfranchisement efforts.
What does that have to do with the OP? There are many states that allow Open Carry today.
The original comment stands - Californian views are not universally shared throughout the country. This is the very reason we have States in this country, each with their own government.
Trying to compel people in other states to live the way you think they should, isn't right.
Hell, they passed more than 5 in the last 2 years.
I’m not going to argue if it’s a good or bad law, but as written, each state gets to regulate which residents get nothing more than a butter knife, or a nuke, and where the state keeps those things. Arms !== rifles.
The reason why a states militia would be an issue is that it's just mostly useless. States aren't allowed to meddle in foreign policy, so what would the militias do?
Civilians can own things like howitzers, mortars, etc. At least at the federal level, state laws vary.
Check out the Knob Creek event held every year. Tons of military weaponry, all privately owned.