comment: >
  
  Yeah, it’s not a particularly good constitution by modern standards. I’d move a lot of “state” power (and Senate stuff) to something more natural. Like watershed legislatures might be a good one. Some sort of fundamental shared interest that isn’t “We drew these lines in the 1800’s and now we’re stuck with them.” And move most “state level” power to local governments. 
  States can still exist for college football purposes but there’s really no modern reason states west of like Connecticut have the lines they do. (And Delaware doesn’t get to be a state. They wanted to register every corporation and use toll bridges to mooch off other states so that’s what they’re gonna get. It’s an offshore banking island now even if we have to dredge a new canal to make it fully offshore. They’ll be happy because they’ll have a whole new waterway to make toll bridges over to make people driving between DC to NYC fund their government.)
  EDIT: I originally said east of Connecticut but I meant west. My point was just that states make increasingly less sense in a modern context the more west you get from New England, basically.
context: Is hiring an impersonator of McCarthy’s Chief of Staff to call people and bilk them out of donations, not “breaking campaign, finance laws?” >
  
  We don’t even know if his name really is George santos >
  
  I think it's fair and legit to ask for his birth certificate. >
  
  House of Representatives actually have a Constitutional requirement to be a US citizen for at least seven years. This should literally have to be verified for all US Reps, not just Santos. As much as the Republicans scream about respecting the Constitution, you would think enforcement of this would have been enacted by now. >
  
  I mean Trump's currently the most likely Republican candidate for 2024 and he outright called for the Constitution to be got rid of. >
  
  If they take the 2nd amendment with it, I could maybe get behind it. /s