We don't have to be that bad (knuckle-walking idiots, to use your term) for it to be worse, we only have to be predictably fallible.
You keep bringing up how out of date the constitution is in support of your outright rejection of it, but have yet to give any clue as to what you think a more 'modern' structure would look like by comparison. The image that conjures in my mind most when I hear someone dismiss the Constitution as being 'out of date' is of the person who thinks it's not "democratic" enough, and sees no place for that check against mob rule we both agree should be there. So tell me how you differ from them. How do you structure a new Constitution, the Constitution according to Underlankers? You don't have to write the whole thing in detail, give me a few broad strokes to understand what it would look like, something a little more specific than "Not what we have now".
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 15/9/11 14:50 (UTC)You keep bringing up how out of date the constitution is in support of your outright rejection of it, but have yet to give any clue as to what you think a more 'modern' structure would look like by comparison. The image that conjures in my mind most when I hear someone dismiss the Constitution as being 'out of date' is of the person who thinks it's not "democratic" enough, and sees no place for that check against mob rule we both agree should be there. So tell me how you differ from them. How do you structure a new Constitution, the Constitution according to Underlankers? You don't have to write the whole thing in detail, give me a few broad strokes to understand what it would look like, something a little more specific than "Not what we have now".