Look, I can see why Ruth has trouble with our constitution. I see her gripes. There are a few rough edges in it, and there are things that got put in the South African constitution that build and improve on the verbiage of ours.
If memory serves me, the biggest problems from a contemporary view are
1) A lot of things that ended up being amendments should have been in the main body of the document
2) Everything about slavery and voting rights, and who constitutes a citizen need to be reworked.
3) The 2A is far too open to interpretation
I'm sure there is a much bigger, more inclusive list out there. I don't disagree with those faults. HOWEVER. . .
The problem with tinkering with our constitution is that once you get in there and start debating it, the debaters themselves become the problem. The Founding Fathers were uniquely blessed individuals. They had their faults, but they did a bang-up job. The trailer trash that would desire to rewrite the document are petty political hacks.
Compromise? What would you give up to keep the 2nd Amendment? What happens if the 1A gets rewritten to define Hate Speech? How are you going to defend the Electoral College?
Right now, we've got our political version of King James Bible. There are scholars on all sides that want to do this and that to it-- spruce it up, do some quick editing and produce a Revised Standard Edition. Waiting in the wings are a bunch of editorial jackals that want to write in verses that has Jesus mary Mary, make bestiality okay, and turn the Trinity into the Holy Trio. What possible reason would we have for licensing that charade?
Ruth? Inviting RBG to sit on the Supreme Court made about as much sense as asking Leon Trotsky to be the Chairman of the Better Business Bureau. I won't say she was the worst appointment ever made, but she's right up there. To be the absolute worst, she'd have to top being either a schizophrenic or a drug addict. Yes, kiddies, we have had worse.
