[Nitramp]

> It isn't perfect at all and maybe fallen out of time a bit, but it is better than that of any other country I know (I am not for the US).

That's a very surprising take to me.

Some more obvious problems with the US constitution are highly ambiguous clauses (right to bear arms vs militias), unclear powers assigned to parts of the government (could Pence have legally decided on the electors to make Trump win? what's the exact succession of powers?), an election system causing imbalanced voting power (how many senators per state vs population, first-past-the-post vote), important rights left undefined (right to privacy vs the abortion issue), and many many more issues. These really are just the recent things that come to mind. These problems also don't seem scholarly, they appear to have substantial impact on political reality.

The US constitution was certainly a huge achievement for the 18th century. There's - unsurprisingly - been a lot of progress in constitutional theory in the 235 years after though, and it seems like it is a massive liability for the US by now.

[raxxorraxor]

This is an extremely narrow perspective on contemporary issues. I think laws in harmony with the constitution would need to answer these questions.

As I said, I don't believe it to be perfect, but I have severe doubts current powers could come up with something better.

The question of the number of representatives by state is a political one. Look at the EU. Pretty much the same. Otherwise a union would not be possible. This is a form of minority protection. There is valid criticism for that but said criticism should first understand why it is the way it is. There is also valid criticism of "the winner takes it all" approaches of course. These issues aren't even disconnected here.

Still, the US constitution is pretty great. I don't know of one that is better. I don't believe the current political climate could improve it significantly and I cannot blame it for not having a direct answer to any legal question. A constitution that might have that would be extremely long and probably extremely bad.

[Nitramp]

> This is an extremely narrow perspective on contemporary issues.

Do you have specific reasons why you think that's the case? I did give concrete examples, some of which are indeed recent events, but all of these seem to hold in general outside the context of recent events.

> Still, the US constitution is pretty great. I don't know of one that is better.

What countries do you compare to here? And what would be the dimensions you're comparing them on?

> I don't believe the current political climate could improve it significantly.

I think that's true, but that might speak more to the political climate in the US than the inherent quality of the constitution.

[raxxorraxor]

I don't think a constitution needs to have answers to these questions. Laws need to define these edge cases which are determined elected governments. They just have to be in harmony with the constitution.

For what would the US constitution be a liability for? It was designed to limit power. That some people might perceive that as limiting is probably for the better. It was imperative for the idea of checks and balances which today seem much more lacking in the US. And the nouveau critics of the constitution seem completely lost on that point.

As I said, it isn't perfect. I don't know the constitution of every country and there might be one that is indeed better. Do you have an example?

[Nitramp]

If you're interested in this topic, the thing to Google for is "constitutional theory".

Constitutions do not just limit power. They prescribe how a society organizes itself, including how to exert power (not just how to limit it). A major goal for democratic constitutions is enabling a society to make collective decisions.

E.g. the US congress is famously struggling to make decisions. An interesting question then is how the US constitution prescribes decisions must be made, and whether that framework of decision making is successful along certain criteria (e.g. representing voter will, protecting fundamental rights).

If you're interested in comparing to other constitutions, a good way might be researching countries that "score well", e.g. that have stable governments, non-violent transitions of power, successful decision making, score well on the human development index, etc. - or countries where things are going particularly poor. I find that the positive example is often more interesting, because the poor outcomes often have major negative factors that might not apply in other countries and might not relate to their respective constitution.

Countries that come to mind would be the likes of Sweden, Japan, Botswana, New Zealand, but your mileage may vary depending on what you consider to be positive outcomes for a society.

[raxxorraxor]

Of course constitutions describe more than that, it is what the US constitution famously improved upon aside from providing a fundamental set of laws. In contrast to constitutions before of course which most often just ascribed absolute power to certain institutions, monarchs or other political bodies.

But I still do think the US constitution does indeed hold up rather nicely, especially in their current political climate where people might tend to disagree with each other. It provides the most essential legal guarantees. In this case a constitution has the important role to define what people actually agree on.

I think what you say about the irrelevance of the constitution in poor outcomes is also true for the success case. Switzerland or Norway score very high on metrics measuring democracy and social services. But their overall strategic position is probably a major factor.

It is difficult to quantify success in governance and this might highly depend on perspective. Japan or South Africa have solid constitutions too, but you have to read it very differently than that of the US. You have to mind the age difference.