this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
18 points (87.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48214 readers
1063 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Bonus points. If you think of something you would add to the new constitution.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Steve@communick.news 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Constitution isn't a holy text with "teachings".

Even the guys who wrote thought it had a lot of problems, and didn't think it would last 50 years.

It realy should be completely be re-written. With an expiration date built in, to ensure it gets re-written in the future.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem is-- who is going to re-write it? This is a serious question. Do you really think a consensus of those currently running the US government could do better than the Framers?

[–] Steve@communick.news 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No they won't. But someone will. Because someone would need to. Probably a lot of people. And the states would need to ratify it. If you can get all the states on board with something, it might be better than what we currently have. It might not.

But that doesn't matter. What we have today is broken. Unquestionably, it needs a major overhaul. Nothing lasts forever. Not even the United States of America. The Framers weren't special people. They were ordinary men. No smarter than us today. And we understand the world today much much better than they ever could. So I'd bet on any random one of us, over them.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We come down to the same underlying problem that we have today- the people of the country are not actively engaged in the political process, not nearly to the same degree the Framers intended.

The difference between those people who wrote our constitution and the people we have today is those people recognized the importance of what they were doing. They were willing to stand up and fight and die if necessary to create a free society. Today the inheritors of that free society largely can't even be bothered to vote, let alone put in an hour or two of research to figure out who to vote for.

So I will agree with you that the wording of the original document is imprecise, and a lot of what we now call constitutional law comes as much if not more from various Court decisions than from the document itself. But given the situation that we have currently, I am genuinely curious what you think could be improved? Knowing the players in question who would be writing the new constitution, knowing the amount of influence various people and groups and companies have over our political process, a. What do you think could or should be changed or improved, and b. How likely is it do you think that would actually happen without the process being corrupted?

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 weeks ago

Knowing the players in question who would be writing the new constitution

We don't know who. Members of the current government certainly wouldn't. They have too much invested in the current system. They'd do everything they could to fight it. No revolution ever included officials or influencers from the old government.

As for what changes would be needed? That would be a massive list. Heavily dependent on details.
Generally speaking:

  • More explicit guardrails around corruption.
  • Less centralized power in the executive branch. Maybe multiple "Presidents"
  • A mechanism for the public to unilaterally recall an elected offical.
  • Intrabranch enforcement of powers over each other. So the courts can't just be ignored.

That's just the high flyers off the top of my head.