What would an entirely new U.S. Constitution look like?

Working off the reconstructed state constitution that I republished in November–and radicalized by the collapse of constitutional government over the last three months–I've decided to imagine what a completely new U.S. Constitution could look like.

One of the guiding principles of both documents is the idea that constitutions–the foundational compacts and governing texts of their societies and political systems–should be written in clear, concise language that is legible to most of the population. The People cannot govern themselves if they cannot readily access and understand the institutions and procedures of their democracy.

Another principle is that a good constitution should plainly spell out the functions and powers of all institutions and procedures authorized by the text, and provide clear guidelines for all imaginable situations and crises. A good constitution–one in which the People exercise genuine power–is one that can provide for lawful, legitimate governance at nearly all times, and one in which clever lawyers can't reinterpret the text in pursuit of their pet reactionary, anti-democratic, and/or oligarchical projects. The fewer holes in the text, the fewer opportunities for Federalist Society types to drive a tracker trailer through it, and over the rights of the People.

This new Constitution shares many features with the draft state constitution, including:

• a unicameral legislature elected by single transferable vote proportional representation;
• a parliamentary system in which executive power is directly controlled by the legislature*;
• a national campaign finance system that shuts out corporations and wealthy individuals from direct involvement in the political system;
• scrapping judicial supremacy and strongly restricting the power of judicial review, affirmatively placing the central power of constitutional interpretation with the legislature;
• robust protections for the right to vote and for all other constitutional protections;
• enforceable positive rights: workers' rights, healthcare, education, environmental protections, and access to necessary medical care, among others;
• significant reforms to the criminal and civil legal systems, in the hope of transforming them into systems of justice.

It also preserves the best aspects and concepts of the 1791/1870 Constitution, namely federalism**, an independent judiciary, a commitment to preventing and punishing corruption, a robust system of public finance, and a strong legislature that serves as the heart of the political nation.

This constitution is deeply influenced by the constitutions and legal-political systems of numerous countries, including Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Finland, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Denmark, among others. Several state constitutions provided valuable ideas as well.

This is a draft text and, as such, is incomplete. I will regularly update it as I encounter new ideas, and my understanding of politics, constitutional law, and human behavior changes and grows.

* This is in line with my view that Madison's conception of the separation of powers–while a terrible idea in practice–was grounded in a sound observation of political behavior. History has shown that systems of checks and balances–using politicians' self-interest to encourage them to check the ambitions of their colleagues–can be effective. Ironically, the best way to create a system of checks and balances is through a parliamentary system with strong political parties. The most recent evidence for this is the removal of Boris Johnson in 2022; contrast it with the failure to remove Trump from office in 2019 and 2021 (followed by his attempted coup the same year). It's not just that Linz was right (he most certainly was!): well-designed parliamentary systems are actively better at removing failing, illegitimate leaders and protecting against authoritarian behavior by the executive. There is something ironic about Madison's views becoming associated with the presidential system of government we have today, given that he argued for a nascent parliamentary system at the Constitution Convention: a directly-elected unicameral Congress that would in turn elect the President. The system we ended up with, however, was more in line with popular views on government at the time, and followed both state constitutions and (roughly) the British system.

** While making alterations to prevent the widespread abuses that have marked the use of State and local power in American history; also allowing each level of government to function and exercise its powers and legitimately express the democratic will of their respective electorates; and having the electoral system of each actually reflect and represent their respective electorates.