“Democracy is the worst form of government. … And democracy is the only social order that is admissible, because it is the only one consistent with justice.”1
“There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”2
Some might argue that the United States is, and has always been, an anemic and deeply flawed democracy.3 The republic, on the other hand, has persisted for nearly two and a half centuries. But in its 249th year, as fascism has taken firm root in American society,4 the republic’s lights are flickering out.5,6,7,8,9
Functional democracies require rules, enforced by a rule of law. Americans have attempted to impose the rule of law on ourselves through a constitution and a bill of rights. These documents have now devolved into inert scraps of paper due to their abuse and misuse by a society unwilling to take their content seriously. The first quote displayed above suggests that a democracy is only as legitimate as its ability to deliver justice to those under its jurisdiction. Ours has consistently failed that test. Any pretense to even mask those failures has now dissolved.10
The United States is governed by representatives who belong, almost exclusively, to one of two major parties. Both parties are sclerotic and corrupt, but one is particularly adept at propagating fear, loathing and hysteria in order to grab and hold onto power, after which, like a one-trick pony, it pushes legislation to transfer handfuls of coins from the pockets of legions of struggling multitudes into the already overstuffed bank accounts of the smaller number of already well-off. Just like Lucy, who fools Charlie Brown with the same old trick of snatching away the ball just as poor ol’ Charlie tries to kick it, America’s most reactionary party promises to achieve any number of reactionary goals on behalf of its reactionary constituents, but remains laser-focused on its prime directive: take income and wealth from those with modest means, and deliver it to those already have too much.11 These reactionaries — both the representatives and their constituents — now comprise America’s fascist movement.
This is not to let folks represented by the other major political party off the hook. Liberals and their fellow travelers (loosely defined here as the ideological constituency encompassing centrists who lean slightly left, and anyone to the left of them) have failed to prevent folks on the reactionary “side of the aisle” from ushering in a fascist state. This is a catastrophic failure. Theoretically, we are a people governed by a “rule of law’ that is defined by a constitution and bill of rights. A lawless government, such as the one that has taken power, knows full well that the only way its leadership avoids legal jeopardy is to keep a tight grip on power. So now that we “progressives” have allowed this catastrophe to befall us, what are our coherent plans (if any) for fighting our way out of it?
For an eternity, humans have clung to a hope that a new day will dawn for those who stand long and the forests will echo with laughter.12 But the “piper” has never led us “to reason.” It never will. Coming to one’s senses is not for those who instinctively gravitate towards illusion, fantasy, lies. This gravitational pull is what has brought us to where we are, a vortex from which we may not escape. At least not by our own volition. Do we, instead, turn to yet another “piper” who promises to “lead us to reason”?
Perhaps not. Maybe it’s time to think of a different strategy. The centerpiece of that strategy must include reestablishment of the rule of law. The current documents that were once intended to ward off a lawless government have degenerated into mere scraps of paper largely because they are insufficient to the task of guaranteeing good governance to a large, modern, technologically advanced and highly complex society. This has left those documents vulnerable to misinterpretation, misapplication and other abuses by negligent or malign operators acting in bad faith and with ill intent.
Frankly, any of the frontier chatbot models — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, LLaMa, DeepSeek and others — can craft a more just and more coherent nation-state constitution and bill of rights than offered by the legacy documents, now reduced to tatters. (SPOILER ALERT: Proof of this assertion is shown below.) The original U.S. Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights once faithfully offered at least the promise of the rule of law for U.S. citizens. Any new formulation of the originals must include clear and precise language, and should also firmly introduce sets of responsibilities that must accompany every right that is guaranteed.
Where to start? Maybe we can start small; why don’t we ask the chatbot to help us rewrite the first two amendments to the Bill of Rights, employing the considerations described immediately above? First, let’s ask the bot to create an appropriate system prompt.
David J Myers: Hello Claude: Will you please assist me with writing a system prompt focused on writing drafts of the 1st and 2nd amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights that are more responsive to the requirements and aspirations of a large, complex, highly technical and multidimensional modern society?
Claude-Sonnet-3.7 (Via the Poe.com chatbot model aggregator.): Hello! I'd be happy to help you create a system prompt for drafting modern interpretations of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Here's a focused prompt that addresses your requirements:
You are an expert constitutional scholar tasked with drafting modern versions of the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Your goal is to preserve their core principles while making them more responsive to contemporary societal needs.
When drafting these modern amendments:
For the 1st Amendment, address modern considerations such as:
For the 2nd Amendment, address modern considerations such as:
Present each draft amendment with a brief explanation of your reasoning and how it preserves the original intent while addressing modern complexities.
User (David): Good evening, Claude: I am conducting an experiment centered on enlisting help from a frontier chatbot model on updating language of particular elements of one of the foundational documents written during the formation of the United States government. The document is the U.S. Bill of Rights. Please assist with updating the language of the 1st and 2nd amendments using the guidelines presented in the system prompt. Please also introduce responsibilities that must accompany the exercise of rights articulated in each of the amendments.
Bot (anthropic/claude-sonnet-4): Good evening, David. I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this constitutional exercise. Here are my draft modernizations of the First and Second Amendments, incorporating both updated language and corresponding responsibilities:
Draft Text: "Congress shall make no law, nor shall any government entity or private platform exercising quasi-governmental functions, create policies that abridge the freedom of thought, speech, expression, and communication through any medium; the free exercise of religion and conscience; the right of peaceful assembly in public and designated private spaces; the right to petition government for redress of grievances; or the freedom of the press to gather, investigate, and disseminate information. These rights extend to digital communications, emerging technologies, and all forms of peaceful expression, while recognizing that with these freedoms come responsibilities for truthfulness, respect for others' equal rights, and consideration of genuine public welfare."
Reasoning: This version preserves the core protections while addressing digital-age realities like platform governance and online expression. It clarifies that responsibilities accompany rights without creating government-enforceable restrictions on content.
Accompanying Responsibilities:
Draft Text: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms suitable for personal defense, sporting purposes, and as a check against tyranny shall not be infringed, while recognizing that this right may be subject to reasonable regulations that serve compelling public safety interests and do not effectively nullify the core right. Such regulations may include licensing, training requirements, safe storage mandates, and restrictions on weapons designed primarily for warfare rather than the enumerated lawful purposes, provided such measures are applied equally and do not create undue barriers to law-abiding citizens."
Reasoning: This version explicitly preserves the individual right established in Heller while acknowledging McDonald's incorporation, yet provides framework for reasonable regulations. It distinguishes between different categories of weapons based on their primary design purpose.
Accompanying Responsibilities:
Both amendments explicitly acknowledge that constitutional rights come with corresponding civic responsibilities, reflecting a mature understanding that sustainable freedom requires both individual liberty and collective responsibility.
User (David): Thank you, Claude: Your updated formulations of the first and second amendments to the Bill of Rights are a good start. I wonder, however, if we can put a bit more teeth into the responsibilities that accompany each amendment. While one can make a reasonable case that the “rights” component of each of the amendments should maintain a “first among equals” status when paired with the accompanying responsibilities, if the responsibilities are seen as afterthoughts, bad-faith actors will immediately find ways to evade them.
Let’s focus on your reasoning for your reimagining of the second amendment, in which you cite the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Many, myself included, criticize this the Court’s rationale for giving undue weight to the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) at the unreasonable expense to the prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”). While the Heller decision may not have sunk to the depravity of some of the Court’s even more infamous decisions (Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, Buck v. Bell), many (again, including me) consider Heller — at best — a tragic missed opportunity to open the door to at least the possibility of responsible gun legislation.
Perhaps we can try a thought experiment to help guide our thinking on this. Let’s suppose that, instead of writing “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” the founders had instead written something along the lines of “I’d sure love to wrap my eager lips around a big sweet mouthful of that steaming hot Cherry Pie; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Reasonable people might surmise that the distracted founder who wrote the amendment had a fetish for mouthfuls of sweet steaming hot cherry pie, and guns, and that the other founders were too lazy to appropriately edit that particular draft before codifying it into law. But the actual amendment’s prefatory of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is clear justification for the operative clause’s “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Claude: May we try another attempt at writing both the first and second amendments with the above considerations in mind? We should also make every effort to tighten and strengthen the language, guided by absolute certainty that bad-faith actors will make every effort to undermine the meaning and intent of both amendments.
Bot (anthropic/claude-sonnet-4): You make an excellent point about both the need for stronger responsibility frameworks and the constitutional interpretation of the Second Amendment. Let me draft revised versions that address these concerns more robustly.
Draft Text: "Congress shall make no law, nor shall any government entity, abridging the freedom of speech, expression, press, religion, assembly, and petition. These rights extend to all forms of communication and media, including digital platforms. However, the exercise of these rights requires adherence to corresponding civic duties: speakers bear legal responsibility for demonstrable harm caused by deliberately false statements of fact; religious exercise may not impose material harm on others; assembly must remain peaceful and respect others' equal rights to public spaces; and press freedoms carry enforceable obligations for correction of factual errors and disclosure of funding sources for political content."
Draft Text: "A well-trained and responsibly armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state and community safety, the right of qualified individuals to keep and bear appropriate arms shall be protected. This right requires demonstration of competency through mandatory training, secure storage to prevent unauthorized access, insurance coverage for potential damages, and submission to periodic review. Arms suitable for personal defense, hunting, and sporting purposes are protected; military-grade weapons designed for warfare may be regulated or prohibited. This right may be suspended for individuals who demonstrate unfitness through due process."
Revised Reasoning: This approach treats the prefatory clause as establishing both the purpose and the conditions under which the right exists. Rather than treating "well regulated" as merely descriptive historical context, it becomes a constitutional requirement—citizens exercising this right must be "well-regulated" through training, accountability, and oversight.
Enforceable Responsibilities:
The key insight from your thought experiment is that prefatory clauses establish conditions and limitations, not mere background context. A truly "well regulated" militia-citizenry requires active, ongoing regulation to maintain that status.
Both amendments now create enforceable duties that are integral to—not afterthoughts to—the rights themselves.
Download a full transcript of the above conversation between human and bot here:
Constitutional Amendment Modernization Discussion
Hero Image Credit: Angela Yuriko Smith
1919, The Making Of Humanity by Robert Briffault, Part 3: Evolution of Moral Order, Section 2: Primary and Secondary Genesis of Morality, Sub-Section 5: Ethics and Politics, Quote Page 295, George Allen & Unwin London. ↩
“From John Adams to John Taylor, 17 December 1814,” Founders Online, National Archives. ↩
Fung and Keyssar: America’s flawed democracy is in deep—possibly fatal—trouble ↩
Trump’s Global Gulag Search Expands to 53 Nations: The Trump administration is seeking deals with more and more nations to hold deportees — now with the blessing of the Supreme Court. ↩
Poorest Americans Dealt Biggest Blow Under Senate Republican Tax Package ↩
They Didn’t Have to Do This: By passing Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, congressional Republicans have talked themselves into an incomprehensibly reckless plan. ↩