The fundamental attribute of the Constitution is that it can change with the times. The Constitution has been "corrected" 27 times.

There is nothing wrong with the US that cannot be fixed with what is right with the US. The Constitution is the same. If there are any flaws... then we can propose an Amendment and fix it.

"There is nothing wrong with the US that cannot be fixed with what is right with the US."

I really love that quote. (Bill Clinton, right?)

Sorta. I messed up the quote... so... Bill Clinton's version is slightly better.

> There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America

>There is nothing wrong with the US that cannot be fixed with what is right with the US.

Ok. If you really believe in America and the American people, then why shouldn't we do as the article suggests, and call a Constitutional Convention, or use an Amendment to shift to a more parliamentary system that better represents the will of the American people, with less waste and gridlock and greater efficiency and coherence? Or, if the Constitution seems to gridlock us into being unable to change the Constitution in any realistic circumstances, simply ditch it and hold a Convention to draft a new one anyway?

Because the objections I'm hearing to that, in this thread, are that the posters believe what is right with the US is precisely that the Constitution provides for a purportedly-meritocratic oligarchy instead of a real democracy.

So it really comes down to whether you believe "what is right with the US" to be the democratic part, or the oligarchical part.

Because your ideas suck. If you have an actual idea that will stop the gridlock in Congress, I'm all ears. But all you've done is complain and then throw out unreasonable assertions.

Second, I listen to CSpan virtually every day. The number of issues the typical Congressman goes through each day is huge. Whether you recognize it or not, Congress is a policy machine, with dozens of committees discussing many dozens of issues every day, roughly 10 hours a day.

The typical man, woman, or child in this country will NOT be able to keep up with the typical one-minute speeches. I dare you to keep up with the number of issues the House alone attempts to address each day.

http://www.c-span.org/search/?searchtype=All&query=one+minut...

Yes, 10-hour days, or even longer. We've got them recorded from early in the morning... with some committees continuing to air live till 8:00pm or later.

Senators and Representatives average 70 hours / week when in DC. When they break and go back to their districts, they are typically meeting with the locals and solidifying their thoughts for the next congressional section.

The first step to recognizing the problem is recognizing the job of Congress. They are doing their job of discussing... but are getting gridlocked on virtually every viewpoint. Congress's role as the center of debate and policy decisions is in-fact working... and working very well in my view.

IMO, what needs to happen is maybe a bit of decentralized debates across the country. Too many of these viewpoints are meeting in Congress, and the debaters "talk past" each other all too often. It almost sounds like Republicans and Democrats start from fundamentally different places on all of these debates.

But I don't know of any laws that would fundamentally solve the issue of "people from different places disagree with each other".

>If you have an actual idea that will stop the gridlock in Congress, I'm all ears.

There was a whole article of ideas. One of the most effective is also the most obvious: the majority vote. Congress is gridlocked because it's too hard to get an up-or-down vote on bills.

From there, we can shift to a mixed-member proportional representation system, which will fix even more of the gridlock - especially pork - by ensuring that votes for local issues and votes for national-scale ideologies go through separate channels.

I didn't say that the Constitution couldn't fail us. It could definitely use some tweaks here and there, like with term limits for all government officials, disambiguation of some of the language, strengthening of states' rights, addressing some more modern concepts like "privacy", etc.

But what I am saying is that our current problems are mostly in spite of the Constitution, not because of it.

So what you're saying is that what the Constitution needs is even less democracy and even more oligarchy?

So what you're saying is that you hate America and the idea of individual freedom?

See what I did there? When we twist each other's words and don't even try to understand each other, a medium such as this becomes less than useless.