America’s Fragile Constitution • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#21

Post by ckozlowski » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:56 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #19

ckozlowski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a product of it's time. And there were real reasons at the time for a number of those elements. - The electoral college was mean to provide a bit of separation between the population and election to the Presidential office. Remember, in the 1790s, direct election of what was envisioned as a powerful post worried many. While it is largely a formality now, the electoral college provided a degree of separation to…

... I'm not sure how "it was a product of it's time" is an appropriate rebuttal to "bits of it are stale". I'm genuinely puzzled that you think I need a history lesson, given I characterised parts of it as stale, which I would have thought inherently included the concept "it was a product of it's time" - that things that were once fresh and relevant are no longer so.

My apologies. I thought the "stale" comment was directed at the third amendment in particular. Most of what I was offering my rebuttal on was this:

>all suggest that there are things wrong with the American constitution.

Depending on your interpretation of "Wrong", I'd either agree or disagree. But the general point I was trying to make was that I don't find too many flaws with the examples you provided, and with regards to the third amendment, I was trying to provide an example in which even older parts of the document still have a lot of relevance, despite seeming stale at face value.

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence by providing the history lesson though; when I write a reply I do so imagining everyone in the discussion is reading, so while it is probably not new information to you, it might be to someone else. That's the real value in our talk here.

Sorry about that,

Cheers. =)

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#22

Post by crusso » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 11:07 AM UTC

Blaming the Constitution for many of our problems is like getting into your new Tesla drunk, disabling the safety features, then blaming it when you plow into a bus full of school children.

Ben Franklin stated it well:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#23

Post by ckozlowski » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 11:11 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #19

ckozlowski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a product of it's time. And there were real reasons at the time for a number of those elements. - The electoral college was mean to provide a bit of separation between the population and election to the Presidential office. Remember, in the 1790s, direct election of what was envisioned as a powerful post worried many. While it is largely a formality now, the electoral college provided a degree of separation to…

... I'm not sure how "it was a product of it's time" is an appropriate rebuttal to "bits of it are stale". I'm genuinely puzzled that you think I need a history lesson, given I characterised parts of it as stale, which I would have thought inherently included the concept "it was a product of it's time" - that things that were once fresh and relevant are no longer so.

I'll add one other bit, since it's more or less clear now that I am one of those who finds the Constitution to be a remarkable document: I think it's frequently revered for entirely the wrong reasons.

The beauty in the Constitution was that it laid out plans for a very well functioning system of government. It ensured changes had to be made with broad support across the nation, and provided for a very strong judiciary. It at once created a strong Federal system that at the same time was highly resistant to tyranny (again, relatively speaking.)

There have been many constitutions written across the world since, but many of them fall along the same lines as the perceptions and wishes espoused by those who misinterpret ours: They are thick documents that attempt to codify the nation's values and morals, as well as establish rules to live by.

The issue with that is that people and nations change, not to mention it is disadvantageous to the weak or minorities. It's why most of the third world has gone through numerous constitutions...

The U.S. Constitution did none of these things. It lays out a system of governance and conflict resolution. It specified powers. There is only one crime, treason, specif iced in the whole document. And most importantly, it laid out a system to make changes that would ensure the broadest support. That's it.

I groan every time some pundit makes the charge that we don't follow the constitution because of some moral outage or perceived cultural mistake being made that the Constitution is perceived to have provided for. It's the modern day bible, held up to be followed but never read.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#24

Post by wtbob » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:17 PM UTC

ckozlowski wrote: post #14

InclinedPlane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. While I'm sure they didn't mean "deadlock", delay was precisely what the framers had in mind. The emphasis on super-majorities and agreement between multiple bodies was designed to keep mob mentality from fundamentally changing the people's rights in the heat of the moment. I'd argue this has eroded in recent decades due to lack of transparency, which has greatly hindered the third branch, the Judiciary, fro…

> which has greatly hindered the third branch, the Judiciary, from being able to act as effectively as it might have otherwise.

I don't think that the American judiciary's problem is that it's hindered in its actions.

Historically, we should have seen more impeachments of federal officials; Congress needs to wield its authority in an exercise of checks and balances on the executive and judicial branches.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#25

Post by wtbob » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:19 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #9

tsotha wrote: 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 l…

> crazy electoral college method for elections

The Electoral College is not crazy; indeed, IMHO what we need is for the state legislatures to appoint their electors. What's crazy is the popular vote.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#26

Post by wtbob » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:21 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #6

dynomight wrote: post #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-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.

Yup, and indeed our problems have originated when we ignore the rock-paper-scissors nature of our federal government. As I mentioned in another post, we should have seen a lot more impeachments of federal officials over time.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#27

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:30 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #25

vacri wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> crazy electoral college method for elections The Electoral College is not crazy; indeed, IMHO what we need is for the state legislatures to appoint their electors. What's crazy is the popular vote.

[deleted]

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#28

Post by HiYaBarbie » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:30 PM UTC

wangii wrote: 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…

In reality, it's not that complicated.

Here's all you need to know about the Constitution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#29

Post by ckozlowski » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:42 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #24

ckozlowski wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. While I'm sure they didn't mean "deadlock", delay was precisely what the framers had in mind. The emphasis on super-majorities and agreement between multiple bodies was designed to keep mob mentality from fundamentally changing the people's rights in the heat of the moment. I'd argue this has eroded in recent decades due to lack of transparency, which has greatly hindered the third branch, the Judiciary, fro…

> which has greatly hindered the third branch, the Judiciary, from being able to act as effectively as it might have otherwise. I don't think that the American judiciary's problem is that it's hindered in its actions. Historically, we should have seen more impeachments of federal officials; Congress needs to wield its authority in an exercise of checks and balances on the executive and judicial branches.

Well, the idea of Congress impeaching judges frankly terrifies me, and given that Congress holds up most executive appointments as it is, I'm not sure they could do much more damage there.

The Ethics Committees largely hand-slap only the most gross violations of their members. I see your intent there, but I'd much rather see Congress holding a higher standard of itself.

If you're referring to the overreach of Federal officials, then that gets a bit more sticky. Yes, it should be reined in, but when I see one Congressmen one-upping another on how we need to be "tough" or have "no tolerance" for this or that, I'm little surprised that our police and intelligence agencies act the way they do.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#30

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:43 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #10

maxerize wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Deadlock is good" works in a system where the disagreeing sides are reasonable and willing to debate and compromise to produce a solution with broader support.

That is not the system we have: we have a fully-polarized system in which each major party's agenda consists primarily of ensuring that the maximum number of items from the other party's agenda to be enacted will be zero (I say "maximum", because rolling back or repealing any previously-enacted items is also an option). Since they're both quite good at the tactics, the result is inaction even in times when action is needed, to the detriment of the American people.