As I see it, the grievances are indeed real. However, the document, as it stands, lacks the stature to serve as a national constitution – if nothing else, because it is designed around the perspective of one man.
Particularly with the advent of marks, Ingles, Lennon, Trotsky, and their successor, I believe that other themes should be addressed within this constitution.
At the very least, the Democratic control of production for the social need of all, and not the insatiable greed of a few, internationalism and anti-imperialism [including prohibition of war, as standing policy], worker rights and social rights [as a guard against fascism], environmental sustainability, a path to social transformation, and highly participatory democracy by the empowerment of local elections in every community, neighborhood and workplace to establish rank in file committees, governed by workers themselves.
This confronts the issue of social class, which has contradicted development at every level of US history since the first to the present day. Without addressing class interests, I really cannot see how a new constitution would avoid the fate of the existing one.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. But I want to clarify something about the piece—it’s not a proposed constitution, nor an attempt at a comprehensive political or economic blueprint. It’s a Declaration, and by design, a declaration is narrower in purpose.
Just as the original Declaration of Independence in 1776 was not a governing document but a list of grievances against King George III and a moral justification for breaking from his rule, this modern declaration is a statement of resistance—a line in the sand against the creeping authoritarianism embodied by Donald Trump.
Jefferson didn’t draft a worker’s charter, or a socioeconomic manifesto—he wrote a clear, direct case for why the colonists could no longer tolerate rule by a man who treated power as personal property. This modern version echoes that form and purpose. It speaks to a moment, not to the totality of systemic reform.
Of course we should debate class, labor rights, environmentalism, internationalism, and the structures that sustain inequality. But those conversations for another day. This was meant to do what declarations do: name the threat and proclaim the resolve to oppose it.
And history shows us that naming the tyrant—publicly, unmistakably—is the first act of reclaiming democracy. We did it in 1776. We may need to do it again in 2025.
Your point is duly noted. I believe it stands. I also believe — and perhaps you concur — that it is time to consider the broader, constitutional work necessary to bring these United States into a future where matters such as my antecedent note addresses can play their proper role.
As I see it, the grievances are indeed real. However, the document, as it stands, lacks the stature to serve as a national constitution – if nothing else, because it is designed around the perspective of one man.
Particularly with the advent of marks, Ingles, Lennon, Trotsky, and their successor, I believe that other themes should be addressed within this constitution.
At the very least, the Democratic control of production for the social need of all, and not the insatiable greed of a few, internationalism and anti-imperialism [including prohibition of war, as standing policy], worker rights and social rights [as a guard against fascism], environmental sustainability, a path to social transformation, and highly participatory democracy by the empowerment of local elections in every community, neighborhood and workplace to establish rank in file committees, governed by workers themselves.
This confronts the issue of social class, which has contradicted development at every level of US history since the first to the present day. Without addressing class interests, I really cannot see how a new constitution would avoid the fate of the existing one.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. But I want to clarify something about the piece—it’s not a proposed constitution, nor an attempt at a comprehensive political or economic blueprint. It’s a Declaration, and by design, a declaration is narrower in purpose.
Just as the original Declaration of Independence in 1776 was not a governing document but a list of grievances against King George III and a moral justification for breaking from his rule, this modern declaration is a statement of resistance—a line in the sand against the creeping authoritarianism embodied by Donald Trump.
Jefferson didn’t draft a worker’s charter, or a socioeconomic manifesto—he wrote a clear, direct case for why the colonists could no longer tolerate rule by a man who treated power as personal property. This modern version echoes that form and purpose. It speaks to a moment, not to the totality of systemic reform.
Of course we should debate class, labor rights, environmentalism, internationalism, and the structures that sustain inequality. But those conversations for another day. This was meant to do what declarations do: name the threat and proclaim the resolve to oppose it.
And history shows us that naming the tyrant—publicly, unmistakably—is the first act of reclaiming democracy. We did it in 1776. We may need to do it again in 2025.
Your point is duly noted. I believe it stands. I also believe — and perhaps you concur — that it is time to consider the broader, constitutional work necessary to bring these United States into a future where matters such as my antecedent note addresses can play their proper role.
Thank you for your reply.