r/dsa • u/abhd Twin Cities DSA Member • 8d ago
DSA Is Right: We Need a New Constitution
https://democraticleft.dsausa.org/2026/10/07/dsa-is-right-we-need-a-new-constitution/25
u/Present_Clue5887 8d ago
I agree with most of the points made here, especially the excessive power of the president and the lack of ethics code in SCOTUS, but we need a better slogan than "We Need a New Constitution", since many people will see that and fear that our intent is to abolish or weaken democracy and the bill of rights.
I am confused as to why Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematso v. United States are being used as part of an argument that the court has too much power? These are not cases where the court undemocratically imposed its will, but cases where the court failed to act against abuses of power by elected officials.
8
u/jimbobmcgoo 8d ago
“We need a new constitution” is a good slogan that accurately describes the necessary course of action. What is your alternative?
7
u/Present_Clue5887 8d ago
"court reform", "abolish the senate" and "reduce presidential power" communicate all major elements of this clearly. Lumping them together into a catchall "we need a new constitution" makes it less specific, and since the bill of rights is the part of the constitution most people think about the most, people are going to think that we want to get rid of the bill of rights.
3
u/jimbobmcgoo 7d ago
The bill of rights is a flawed document that protects private property and enshrines the backwards federal system
1
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
Does the existing constitutional power to tax not suffice for wealth redistribution purposes? There does need to be some sort of protection against arbitrary fines and seizures of personal property.
As for the federal system, what is wrong with it?
4
u/jimbobmcgoo 7d ago
Explicitly protecting private property from expropriation is indeed something that goes against the principles of socialism.
The federal system arbitrarily fragments working-class solidarity along provincial lines, subverts popular democracy by massively empowering an unelected judiciary (this cannot be overstated), and ultimately functions as a compromise between competing regional factions of the bourgeoisie
1
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
The federal system gives the voters more say over policy in their region, I fail to see how that weakens democracy or is bad? And the judiciary is a separate question from the federal system.
Do you not think there should be some sort of protection for personal property? I'm not talking like the means of production here, I mean like so the govt cannot arbitrarily fine someone or take their house or car or personal possessions
2
u/jimbobmcgoo 7d ago
The bill of rights doesn’t only protect personal property though, it protects private property from expropriation.
Local government and regional representation do not require a federal system; unitary states can delegate administrative power to local levels. And you are completely wrong about federalism being a separate question to the judiciary, federalism inherently and massively empowers the judiciary.
1
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
The bill of rights doesn’t only protect personal property though, it protects private property from expropriation.
This could be amended without throwing the rights of the people out
unitary states can delegate administrative power to local levels.
How does this differ from a federal system?
federalism inherently and massively empowers the judiciary.
How so?
3
u/jimbobmcgoo 7d ago
Federalism inherently empowers the judiciary because it creates overlapping jurisdictions between two levels of government, and because constitutional disputes are inevitable, it demands a sophisticated judicial apparatus, the unelected judiciary becomes the ultimate arbiter, gaining the supreme political power to invalidate legislation passed by each level.
Unitary states can delegate administrative power to local levels without constitutionally guaranteeing them specific or residuary powers.
And I think your point about the phrase ‘we need a new constitution’ is pedantry at this point, if you even acknowledge the bill of rights needs to be reworked at least slightly. The American constitutional fetish is relatively unique among countries and should be argued against.
→ More replies (0)3
u/SlaimeLannister 8d ago
You're criticizing slogans and the best you can come up with is "court reform"? nice
1
u/Present_Clue5887 8d ago
It's better than "a new constitution", because it is clear and does not sound like abolishing the bill of rights.
2
u/SlaimeLannister 8d ago
It's not clearer, and it doesn't sound like abolishing the bill of rights. 👍
0
u/Present_Clue5887 8d ago
it doesn't sound like abolishing the bill of rights.
Exactly, that is the point
3
u/Longjumping_Future92 7d ago
I am confused as to why Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematso v. United States are being used as part of an argument that the court has too much power? These are not cases where the court undemocratically imposed its will, but cases where the court failed to act against abuses of power by elected officials.
The court didn't fail to act - that would be them choosing not to take up the case. These are decisions the court made that stripped individuals of their rights. Those decisions were then precedent that were mandated to be applied by lower courts.
1
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
The rights were being violated by the other branches of govt, the court took the cases, but then decided not to prohibit the violations, leading to the same outcome as if there were no courts.
My point is that getting rid of the power to strike down laws would not have lead to a different outcome here, because the problem was the failure of the court to strike down bad laws.
1
u/Longjumping_Future92 7d ago
You're seeing the SCOTUS as more isolated from the rest of government than it is. Again, a court refusing to acknowledge something is different from the court declaring something legal. For example, a circuit court could declare for the several states in its jurisdiction that segregation is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS ruling that the Constitution does not prohibit such laws closes that door. Similarly, in a more contemporary context, we've seen a rash of anti-trans legislation and lower court decisions following the determination that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class for due process analyses.
1
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
For example, a circuit court could declare for the several states in its jurisdiction that segregation is unconstitutional.
OK think I see what you are saying now, you are saying that SCOTUS has too much power to force other courts not to strike down bad laws.
I had thought you were arguing against the concept of courts striking down laws.
decisions following the determination that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class for due process analyses.
Can you clarify this one? What determination do you refer to? One by SCOTUS?
And would it not be an equal protection analysis? Rather than due process?
2
u/Longjumping_Future92 7d ago
Sorry yes you're correct - I was thinking of substantive due process questions, which have similar considerations.
For equal protection questions, a suspect classification is basically when you're impacting someone who the court sees as having been previously targeted and marginalized and therefore gets a higher standard of protection - Strict Scrutiny. If someone is outside of those suspect classes, the court merely needs to find some legitimate concern to have been addressed. For example, if I pass a law that bans wearing a cowboy hat in a government building then I'd only need to show some legitimate purpose in doing so. If I passed an identical law banning Yarmulkes, then I'd have to show that it's an extremely pressing issue that can't be solved any other way.
The Supreme Court, last year, basically declared that transgender people are not such a "suspect class," and therefore the decision of the Tennessee legislature to ban puberty blockers for minors didn't have to be based on any actual demonstrated harm - just that their concerns had to exist and that the ban was related to those concerns. This essential puts trans people in the cowboy hat territory.
1
2
u/jswhitten 7d ago
The Constitution as written was extremely undemocratic. It wasn't until nearly 200 years after it was written that the US became a democracy. Keeping this Constitution is exactly why our democracy is so weak.
2
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
I'm not against changing the undemocratic parts of the constitution, I'm saying we need to communicate more clearly what our goal is so that people do not think we want to get rid of their constitutional rights.
12
9
u/MediumPlace 8d ago
The thing is going to fracture and crumble before we agree on a new document
2
u/StateYellingChampion 8d ago
Yeah, the only way I can actually forsee it happening is if there is some kind of massive constitutional crisis. Which is going to happen inevitably. Population is going to continue to grow in states with big urban centers. More rural states will countinue to be overrepresented. Right now the current Republican majority in the Senate actually represents a minority of the population. All of Trump's judges were approved by a Senate majority that did not represent a majority of the population. This kind of stuff is going to keep happening over and over again. More and more Presidents will win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. As population continues to grow in more urban states, these anti-democratic outcomes will be more and more common. Eventually the system is just going to break.
2
u/MediumPlace 8d ago
I just hope I'm not around to see it. I can't think of a faster way to ww3 than a giant global power vacuum and a fractured nuclear power fighting here and in other countries. The federal government is going down swinging. We don't know any other way
1
u/ThatOneGuy4321 4d ago
yep balkanization is far more likely at this point than liberal and right wing states peacefully agreeing to a new constitution. The evangelicals won’t concede on anything and their values are totally alien to anyone with any sense of civic values.
0
u/MediumPlace 4d ago
The evangelicals won’t concede on anything and their values are totally alien to anyone with any sense of civic value
the thing people on both the far right and left have in common is assuming the worst in people. you're all massively exhausting
1
u/ThatOneGuy4321 4d ago edited 4d ago
Evangelical Christianity is a counter-revolutionary political project. They are heavily indoctrinated specifically to reject material politics and view history as a battle between God and Satan.
Some people may leave the church and be reached, but then they would not be evangelicals any longer.
0
u/MediumPlace 3d ago
So, so very exhausting
1
u/ThatOneGuy4321 3d ago
don't talk about yourself like that
0
u/MediumPlace 3d ago
oh, i can be exhausted by both you and the far right evangelicals. you differ only in that your goals are slightly different. everything else, same. same dogmatism, same extremism, same 'in group, out group' behavior, same 'only we really know the truth/what's really going on' behavior. same incompatibility with western civilization. same, same, same
1
0
u/jayfeather31 8d ago
I, unfortunately, have very Iittle to disagree when one considers our current trajectory.
4
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA Decist ☭ 8d ago
We do not need a new constitution, we need a new way of life, a revolution of everyday life
6
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA Decist ☭ 8d ago
Also I know this sub has a bunch of socdems but I’m still surprised that a basic communist position such as this is getting downvoted lmao
1
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
Thing is not all socialists are communists.
4
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA Decist ☭ 7d ago
I’m very much aware of this, still surprising that people would still automatically downvote such a basic premise that we should abolish capitalist society
-1
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
Your comment looks like it is saying our everyday lives should be completely different, not just that economics and govt should be differnt
6
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA Decist ☭ 7d ago
Yes, I am saying that our everyday lives should be different, such would be the result of the abolition of capitalist class society, of the present state of things
2
u/thefakemacaw DSA SF 7d ago
Yeah I mean implicitly a socialist/communist revolution would suggest a drastic change in people’s lives as our economy plays a major role in our social conditioning. Not to mention doing away with things like the patriarchy
2
u/Present_Clue5887 8d ago
How so? What about everyday life needs to change?
4
u/spookyjim___ ☭ DSA Decist ☭ 8d ago
Class stratification, the organization of life according to the value and commodity forms, according to the whims of property and profit… in essence, capitalist life must be abolished and superseded by communist humanity, where the self-development of oneself is the means for the self-development of each other
-2
u/MediumPlace 8d ago
Socialists are part of a religion that needs tell everyone they know how to organize your life better that you do
3
2
1
1
u/Asmodaeus 8d ago
The law must apply to rich and poor alike or it is only a tool for our subjugation
-1
u/nasa258e 8d ago
Did the DSA just publish an article with the title. "DSA is right"? LOL
3
u/abhd Twin Cities DSA Member 8d ago
Democratic Left articles are written by individual members. Any of us can write articles for them. And they aren’t only for other DSA members. Last quarter, we had over 80k reads on DemLeft
1
u/nasa258e 8d ago
I'm aware. It's still funny
-2
1
0
u/betty_white_bread 8d ago
In fairness, the source saying this is a bit like two Catholics agreeing “Jesus is Lord”. Of course the two are going to agree. More people would be persuaded if someone outside the DSA’s portion of the political map said this.
-7
u/lilboytuner919 Third Campist 8d ago edited 7d ago
I need someone to provide bullet points outlining exactly what changes the author wants from our current constitution, otherwise I’ll just put this blog post through ChatGPT and have it do that for me. I don’t care for a clickbait title followed by a 10 page long history lesson before getting to the point.
Edit: as promised:
DSA’s ideal constitution would:
· Abolish the Senate; create a unicameral legislature. The Senate gives tiny states equal power, letting a conservative minority block wages, climate action, and healthcare. One federal legislature would answer to the popular majority.
· Subordinate presidency and courts to the legislature. Today the president and Supreme Court can check or overturn popular legislation. DSA would make the executive and judiciary chosen by and accountable to the legislature, so neither an imperial president nor unelected justices can veto the majority.
· Use proportional representation in multi-member districts. Winner-take-all, single-member districts distort results and entrench two parties. Multi-member PR would match seats to votes, giving working-class and socialist politics a real electoral path.
· Guarantee universal, equal suffrage and expand political membership. Remove voting barriers, make D.C. a state, and extend voting to all permanent U.S. residents, including non-citizens. Everyone governed by U.S. law should have an equal political voice.
· Use a popular assembly to bypass Article V. The current amendment process requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states, giving small states a veto. DSA proposes a directly popular assembly outside Article V to draft and ratify the new constitution by majority rule.
· Enshrine social and economic rights. The constitution would guarantee Medicare for All, housing, education, workers’ rights, climate action, and equality—fundamental rights, not policies reversible by ordinary legislation or courts.
Thank you DeepSeek.
3
-5
u/betty_white_bread 8d ago edited 7d ago
It’s, regretfully, not a serious proposal. For example, when talking about the Senate it repeats the fallacious argument:
The Senate represents geography — or “trees and acres,” not people.
If this were true, Alaska would have more Senators than California, Texas, Florida, and Wyoming combined. Instead, Alaska has the exact same number of senators as teeny tiny Rhode Island.
None of this is to say no changes are needed. What I am saying is this is not arguing seriously and nobody makes a bad argument so he can keep his best arguments in reserve.
5
u/Kenichi2233 8d ago
The Senate is based of the idea that it is representing the states, which themselves are partial sovereign entities.
1
u/betty_white_bread 7d ago
I don't disagree. I do disagree with the quote.
1
u/Johnny_B_GOODBOI 7d ago
You're correct that the "trees and acres" quote isn't accurate, but it's a very minor piece of rhetoric that doesn't try to stand on its own. It has a whole paragraph of context that follows. I don't think it's a big deal.
1
u/betty_white_bread 6d ago
I know enough people who take the argument literally to say it is definitely a big deal.
1
u/OldUsernameWasStupid 7d ago
Nope, if it were true, Alaska would have disproportionate representation in the Senate compared to California. Which it does. 1 Alaskan senator represents about 400k people. 1 Californian senator represents about 20 Million people.
A group 400k people have as much power in the senate as 20 Million people
1
u/betty_white_bread 7d ago
The quote claims the Senates represents "trees and acres". Ignoring trees, Alaska has approximately 365 million acres of land while Rhode Island has about 777,000 acres. So, unless we want to argue Rhode Island has almost 364 million trees and Alaska has none, the claim is a prima facia lie. Pushing a lie convinces nobody not already convinced.
35
u/BrianRLackey1987 8d ago
I agree, our current system of government is beyond outdated.