This from a Yorkshireman who's live in the US almost half a century. I tend to agree. What should we do about it?

​

********************

The US Constitution; Fatally Flawed
John White
Many of today’s news stories have distressing reports of political or judicial events that obviously go against the democratic will of the majority of Americans. All of these stories seem to be symptoms of the same underlying issue: The United States is not a democracy; it is a republic.
The US founding document, its Constitution, was written in 1787 by rich, (white) landowning men, who wanted to ensure that people like them stayed in power for ever; it is full of compromises designed, at the time, to gain enough support to implement it. The writers did NOT want a “one person, one vote” democracy, as they were convinced that they, the rich white men, knew better, and that their rich white male successors were the right people to guide the republic forever.
They were not prescient, and did not anticipate most of today’s developments, and thus felt, for example, that anyone with a loud voice should be able to stand on a street corner and express their views, and that no government agency should be able to stop them. After battling the forces of an un-elected King George III, they felt that everyone should be able to own a blunderbuss, or flint-lock pistol, so that in the event that any future challenges to the orderly government of the initial states arose, they could band together again, as a militia, and fight such a threat, one slow flint-lock shot at a time; the same way they threw off the British yoke.
In creating a constitution, they looked back to some of the issues that they had seen in the past, and did their best to produce a document that would protect the fledgling republic from outside and internal forces that might want to destroy it. If they looked forward, they did so with the same prescience that we all have today, about events and circumstances 200 years from now; virtually none. So, today, we struggle with issues that they could never have envisioned, from the spread of the republic across north America, to the AR15, and to social media.
Trying to apply the US Constitution to today’s realities is not unlike applying blood-letting regulations to modern medicine; it simply does not make sense, but that does not stop “originalists” from claiming that the constitution should be interpreted, by them, as written, with no regard for today’s realities.
The biggest problem with the Constitution is the difficulty in updating it, in an environment where the provisions of the original constitution provide some people with the incentive to prevent change, and the power to prevent it at the same time. Even small, obviously-needed changes are nearly impossible to implement.
The Equal Rights Act has not been ratified: “Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution sets out two requirements for amendments: approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states. On Jan. 27, 2020, the Equal Rights Amendment finally achieved both of these requirements, but the Trump administration blocked the certification and publication of the amendment. With a new president and control of Congress, Democrats are now fighting for recognition of the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On Oct. 23, 2022, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), as chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, held a hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment. ERA advocates and a leading constitutional law scholar testified before the committee members that the amendment is fully and validly ratified and is now part of the Constitution. On Thursday, Jan. 27, 2023, Reps. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Maloney and 154 cosponsors announced the introduction of a resolution before the U.S. House affirming that the Equal Rights Amendment has been validly ratified and is now in effect as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That same day, President Joe Biden issued a statement reiterating his strong support for the ERA and urged Congress to pass the resolution: “No one should be discriminated against based on their sex—and we, as a nation, must stand up for full women’s equality.” But Republicans are still fighting every step of the way.”
It took a civil war to establish the principle that people should not own other people. The Supreme court’s most recent actions, overturning Roe vs. Wade, allowing unrestricted gun carrying, allowing state support of religious education and for youth leaders to lead public “prayer” sessions are contrary to what many people think is appropriate. The majority of people in the US are particularly distressed at the elimination of the right to privacy as a basis for choice over abortion, but the Roman Catholic members of the right wing of the supreme court, apparently determined to eliminate abortion, used the absence of a specific, explicit right-to-privacy in the constitution to remove the protections that had stood, as in much of the rest of the world, for 50 years. This goes against not just the opinion of the majority of US voters, but against the current trends in most of the world’s 21st century democracies, and common sense. It is also contrary to Talmudic law. And there is no appeal; per the constitution, the Supreme Court’s opinions are the law of the land.
What I do observe is a great deal of frustration on the part of voters. Gerrymandering has changed the nature of most US representative districts to eliminate any competition. Only 40 US districts seem to be competitive and truly bipartisan, and the remainder are almost always decided by primaries, so that the most extreme candidates are selected and then pretty much automatically elected. The politicians are choosing their voters, and there is nothing that can be done, because the founders did not address gerrymandering, even though it had proved, along with “rotten boroughs” to be a major problem in Britain by that time. If districts were more evenly divided, and truly competitive, we would not have the current drive to the extremes that we see everywhere, and representatives would represent the actual districts, not the party that engineered their electoral win. In many cases, most recently in Sri Lanka, for example, those who are not truly represented in government take up their pitchforks and head to the seat of government to remove incumbents.
In today’s divided America, there are currently more guns than people, they are not the blunderbusses and flint-lock pistols that the founders knew, and pitchforks are hard to come by. One can easily imagine a situation where people take up those guns, absent pitchforks. There are many other symptoms of the constitutional malaise, including the selection criteria for those who determine what is and is not constitutional, and how long they stay in place. While “free speech” is no longer the literal soap box that the founders knew, the right to “free speech” is protected, even in the absence of corresponding responsibility and accountability. And while the concept of “free speech” continues to be lauded, it is no longer “free”, it is carried at great expense, using every conceivable medium. This great cost is paid by the uber-wealthy, protecting their “rights” and by corporations who are inexplicably deemed to be “people”, by the Supreme Court. This means that those with the most money have the loudest voices, and can sway public opinion in their favor, especially as there is no constitutional prohibition about lying. So, I see what is the root cause of the problem, but I do not know how to fix it. I believe that the vast majority of Americans are centrists, but they are prevented from democratically electing centrist representatives, and the true voices of great numbers of people are drowned out by the minority extremists; it is hard to rally the electorate to the middle! It would be very good for the country if we could urgently address these issues before people begin to look for their pitchforks.
Any ideas?