Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Fragile Constitution

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#51

Post by scott_s »

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…

The author of this piece, though, does mean deadlock. Not delay, but true deadlock.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#52

Post by scott_s »

maratd wrote: post #31
ubernostrum wrote: post #30

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…

The constitution was built to create compromises and shared power. It was not built to create deadlock.

The question this essay asks is, how effective is it at those goals? Are there situations where it could all collapse? If yes, are there other systems which are less likely to collapse?

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#53

Post by dragonwriter »

_petronius wrote: post #15

> Even if we discount the failures of other presidential democracies, though, we should not dismiss the fact that the U.S. Constitution was modeled on a system that collapsed into civil war, and that it is inherently fragile. Not to mention the US descending into civil war itself (due to irresolvable conflicts over pro- and anti-slavery voting blocks in the federal government). I think people often forget that the US…

> I'd also argue that constitutional originalism is a very new concept

And you'd be wrong -- some of the original authors were already speaking out against originalism in their own lifetimes, which they wouldn't have had to do if the approach hadn't already starting be applied. (And, in fact, some gave preemptive warnings about it even before the Constitution was ratified, so not only was it actually happening from very early one, it was anticipated and a concern from the very beginning.)

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

adventured wrote: post #20
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…

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…

> it was in fact weaker in every objective respect than Russia has been the last ten years.

No, it wasn't. Most critically, in the capacity for projecting soft and hard power beyond its immediate region -- they key factor distinguishing a superpower from a regional power -- the USSR was far beyond where Russia is now. It may be that Russia is a more effectively focused regional power than the USSR was (though, it must be noted, the areas where it exerts substantial pressure largely are places where the USSR exerted direct rule, and the USSR exerted substantial regional influence far beyond those areas, so even that is dubious.)

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#55

Post by dragontamer »

ckozlowski wrote: post #44
dragontamer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"There is nothing wrong with the US that cannot be fixed with what is right with the US." I really love that quote. (Bill Clinton, right?)

Sorta. I messed up the quote... so... Bill Clinton's version is slightly better.

> There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#56

Post by maratd »

ubernostrum wrote: post #33
maratd wrote: 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. 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.

How have your property rights been compromised through inaction at the federal level of government?

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#58

Post by eli_gottlieb »

dragontamer wrote: post #40
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>There is nothing wrong with the US that cannot be fixed with what is right with the US.

Ok. If you really believe in America and the American people, then why shouldn't we do as the article suggests, and call a Constitutional Convention, or use an Amendment to shift to a more parliamentary system that better represents the will of the American people, with less waste and gridlock and greater efficiency and coherence? Or, if the Constitution seems to gridlock us into being unable to change the Constitution in any realistic circumstances, simply ditch it and hold a Convention to draft a new one anyway?

Because the objections I'm hearing to that, in this thread, are that the posters believe what is right with the US is precisely that the Constitution provides for a purportedly-meritocratic oligarchy instead of a real democracy.

So it really comes down to whether you believe "what is right with the US" to be the democratic part, or the oligarchical part.

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#59

Post by eli_gottlieb »

npsimons wrote: post #49
ckozlowski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Puritanism dies hard. I'd say the constitution is working perfectly: the government we have is the one we deserve and one that really does reflect what this country, on the whole, wants. People in this country are stil…

>I'd say the constitution is working perfectly: the government we have is the one we deserve and one that really does reflect what this country, on the whole, wants.

Can you justify this in a non-self-referential way, ie: via data other than election outcomes?

Re: America’s Fragile Constitution

#60

Post by crusso »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #36
crusso wrote: 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.

I didn't say that the Constitution couldn't fail us. It could definitely use some tweaks here and there, like with term limits for all government officials, disambiguation of some of the language, strengthening of states' rights, addressing some more modern concepts like "privacy", etc.

But what I am saying is that our current problems are mostly in spite of the Constitution, not because of it.

Post reply on HN