Live data from Hacker News

America’s Fragile Constitution

theatlantic.com

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#31

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.

"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…

> "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.

This is not correct. Sometimes inaction is much better than action. In the case of a corrupt government, inaction is always preferable.

The US constitution is built to create deadlock. See checks/balances. It is this deadlock that has lead to American prosperity. While it is unable to do good, it is also unable to do harm.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#32
post #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 l…

No there is one document- thats why they are called amendments.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#33
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> "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. This is not correct. Sometimes inaction is much better than action. In the case of a corrupt government, inaction is always preferable. The US constitution is built to create deadlock. See checks/balances. It is this deadlock that has lead to American prosp…

I suppose if you believe that the only correct amount of government action is zero, you might feel that way. But some of the rest of us enjoy having things like property rights.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#34
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…

The US became the sole super power after WW2. Soviet Russia from 1946-1990 was never a super power, it was in fact weaker in every objective respect than Russia has been the last ten years. Most of the image of it being a super power was propaganda that turned out to be completely false - namely that they had a powerful economy and global military projection ability. Nearly all of their economic output figures were f…

You can also argue that the policy of containment, however painful, worked. Even though "Communist" governments at one time or another controlled the majority of the landmass in Euraisa, the broken economic ideology, lack of trade, and heavy industries/military first policies (caused by a defensive stance against Western containment) meant that their economies could never develop in meaningful ways.

The Soviet policy of expendable buffer countries meant that there was little incentive to develop those territories beyond administrative and military control further impacted meaningful economic development.

The U.S. on the other hand tried to improve the general conditions of its vassal/buffer states with broad economic incentives -- namely trade access to the enormous and growing U.S. market, at levels far beyond heavy industry and military cooperation -- all the way down to the much larger consumer market. This policy generated tremendous wealth, which was then turned into better militaries. In the cases where local conditions didn't make that possible, the U.S. simply installed a dictator and funded the local military directly -- almost Soviet style.

I think it's important to not think of the U.S. in isolation, just like Soviet Russia can't be thought of without the USSR, the Eastern-Bloc and other Communist allies, the U.S. has to be thought of in similar terms. The U.S. had/has vanguard allies in the Five-Eye countries (U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) each able to contribute military units at the strength of U.S. units, "vassal" states like Germany, Japan, Israel and South Korea -- where the U.S. could stage its military at will, and with each offering robust defensive militaries ensuring permanent beachheads, second-tier allies like Iceland, Italy, Philippines, Colombia, etc. that enabled the U.S. to have robust military supply lines.

The USSR had nothing of the order or integration of this global network. A network so large that it spawned tremendous technological innovation in order to manage communication, monitoring and logistics -- pieces of which broke off to form the Internet.

There's no reason to believe that the U.S. and its sphere won't continue to follow this kind of containment policy against states that it doesn't get along with. But economic prosperity is tempting, and China's more permissive environment and massive economic potential can be a tempting ally disgruntled parts of the sphere might turn to, allowing China (who has sufficient political willingness and economic means) to develop into its own super power.

My bet is that the next country that will matter after that will be India.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#35
post #24

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.

I'd agree with that if we had Congressional term limits to make Congress more answerable to the people. As it is, incumbency is way too powerful and is partly to blame for the dysfunction we're currently seeing.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#36
post #22

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…

Oh, sure, right. The Constitution can never fail us, we can only fail it.

That surely doesn't sound like you're talking about a god /s.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#37
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…

The US became the sole super power after WW2. Soviet Russia from 1946-1990 was never a super power, it was in fact weaker in every objective respect than Russia has been the last ten years. Most of the image of it being a super power was propaganda that turned out to be completely false - namely that they had a powerful economy and global military projection ability. Nearly all of their economic output figures were f…

I have a hard time with a definition of "superpower" that doesn't count a country that can essentially wipe the human species off the planet with a few button presses.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#38
post #25
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.

Electoral College by design was supposed to fail. The creators of the Constitution never expected political parties to become a thing.

The House of Representatives were supposed to elect our President, after the Electoral College became deadlocked. That was the design of the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is, the Electoral College is NOT functioning as designed. But whatever, that's how the laws of this country work and we are a country of laws.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#39
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…

No there is one document- thats why they are called amendments.

[deleted]

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#40
post #22

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…

Oh, sure, right. The Constitution can never fail us, we can only fail it. That surely doesn't sound like you're talking about a god /s.

The fundamental attribute of the Constitution is that it can change with the times. The Constitution has been "corrected" 27 times.

There is nothing wrong with the US that cannot be fixed with what is right with the US. The Constitution is the same. If there are any flaws... then we can propose an Amendment and fix it.

Post reply on HN