[JumpCrisscross]

> to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century

The century that saw America exit WWII and the Cold War victorious while navigating a civil rights revolution? All amidst a series of peaceful transitions of powers, including the removal of a corrupt executive?

[hotpotamus]

I believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them. I mean, they wouldn't say that because it sounds crazy, but if you piece together what they say about the constitution, that's the message that comes through to me.

[JumpCrisscross]

> believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them

One can say many things. At the end of the day, the track record stands for itself.

[hotpotamus]

Yes, and many do not like that track record. For instance, allowing women to have abortions, and they now have the ability to alter that track.

[JumpCrisscross]

> many do not like that track record

This is separate from the question of whether the Constitution worked. It did. It produced a stable, powerful society. That some people are dissatisfied doesn’t refute that track record. It just points out there are dimensions on which it failed some.

[hotpotamus]

My understanding is that conservative do not believe the constitution worked; they believe that the original intent is no longer honored and they have set about a legal project to correct that wrong which is now well in control of the court system and get back to the original intent of the constitution (the original intent being what they derive it to be from their readings of history and the text itself).

That those people who are dissatisfied with that track record are now in control of the judicial branch of the US government doesn't refute that track record, I agree, but it does suggest that we are probably on a different track now, no?

[JumpCrisscross]

> it does suggest that we are probably on a different track now, no?

Possibly. Let’s see what happens. The limited claim was that the Constitution worked over the past century. Saying some people are unhappy about the particular way it worked doesn’t detract from the fact itself.

[edmundsauto]

How do you separate out the confounders in this argument, like ww2 destroying Europe, or the natural resources available in N America?

Other countries have been very successful with other forms on basic documents. The American success may have been more successful with a document written to reflect a society without slaves, where you can travel across multiple state borders within a day, etc.

I mean, it’s a fine document and all, but can we please stop asserting without strong evidence that it’s the best ever or that it is the driving force of American success? That’s what I mean by fetishizing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> can we please stop asserting without strong evidence that it’s the best ever or that it is the driving force of American success

Straw man. None of this was asserted. All that was claimed is that it worked for the last century.