Live data from Hacker News

America’s Fragile Constitution

theatlantic.com

1–10 of 80 posts

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#3
The separation of powers seems to be our only saving grace at the moment.

The notion that one style of government is appropriate for all peoples in all places seems absurd. The US constitution was written up by and for people in a particular place and situation and the tensions that existed then look to have escalated to the civil war and these tensions look to remain today. It's interesting to read the anti-federalist papers.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#5
Good read, thanks!

The argument is well established except that the author omitted one crucial factor, which is, US became the only super power in the world in recent two decades. At the time the Constitution was drafted, nobody in his/her wildest dream that US would become the dominant power in this solar system. With the existence of outer threaten, branches (or parties) were driven to cooperate for their very own existence. The threaten was removed, so gone the drive.

My argument is also supported by one common phenomena in the business world: it's really rare that a successful company enjoys no political infight. The logic behind is the same: when insiders can obtain more benefit through relative cheap inner fight, they are no longer interested in relatively expensive, difficult and risky company growing strategy.

Is there anything missing/wrong in my logic?

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#6

The separation of powers seems to be our only saving grace at the moment. The notion that one style of government is appropriate for all peoples in all places seems absurd. The US constitution was written up by and for people in a particular place and situation and the tensions that existed then look to have escalated to the civil war and these tensions look to remain today. It's interesting to read the anti-federali…

What we have is a triumvirate with hammer-paper-scissors powers. Triumvirates in history have tended to be stable governments over longer periods.

I think the article makes a mistake in not mentioning the 3rd branch - the Judiciary.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#7
post #4

There's nothing wrong with the American constitution. The problem is we don't follow it any more.

The author is arguing precisely that the constitution should not be put on a pedestal, and that recent political deadlocks might be due to the constitution not being perfect, and not human error.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#8
post #5

Good read, thanks! The argument is well established except that the author omitted one crucial factor, which is, US became the only super power in the world in recent two decades. At the time the Constitution was drafted, nobody in his/her wildest dream that US would become the dominant power in this solar system. With the existence of outer threaten, branches (or parties) were driven to cooperate for their very own…

I don't see why only recent times are indicative of this. America had few outside enemies in e.g. the 1920s, and yet the inner conflicts (Teapot Dome, Steel and Railroad strikes) during those years were nothing like our recent ones.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#9
post #4

There's nothing wrong with the American constitution. The problem is we don't follow it any more.

Ambiguous wording in some places; crazy electoral college method for elections that ensures a two-party system; and the fact that there have been over 20 things called amendments... all suggest that there are things wrong with the American constitution. Does it mean it was a bad thing overall? No. But to say that there's nothing wrong with it is to say that nothing in it is stale - and regardless of your political leanings, I think everyone can agree that the Third Amendment has been pretty stale for quite some time, for example.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#10
post #7
post #4

There's nothing wrong with the American constitution. The problem is we don't follow it any more.

The author is arguing precisely that the constitution should not be put on a pedestal, and that recent political deadlocks might be due to the constitution not being perfect, and not human error.

The fallacy here is that deadlocks are a bad thing, usually they are not. You don't want a slim majority being able to drive the government at a breakneck pace. When society is deadlocked, government should be too. You want action only when there is fairly broad agreement.
Post reply on HN