281–290 of 747 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a population not significantly a majority of the country “reaches a breaking point”, that sounds like it would not go well.
It won’t. This is going to be a decade of strife and instability.
“decade” is quite optimistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, more like one of the broken parts will create their own Constitution.
The US tried that already in 1861, it didn't go well. Also you're advocating for the idea that Democracy is a bad idea here.
Self determination is a widely recognized political right. If folks in Alabama don’t want folks in California to have a say in their affairs, they have that right. That must be balanced against other practicalities of course. But letting different groups govern themselves is conceptually part of “democracy” just as much as “one person one vote.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Constitution is still the best one in the world. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) is an example of what can go wrong with amendments.
Why does all the "nation building" around the world by the United States never result in a US style constitution, but seemingly inevitably in something closer to the German one? I mean, Americans always talk about their Constitution's supremacy, but they never want to give it to others (not even to Puerto Rico).
Then again, US nation building tends to be an abysmal failure (though, tbf, constitutional structure is not high on the list of defensible reasons for that.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point was governmental stability, not protection against invasion. If you look at, say, France, in the same time they've had their revolution, then Napoleon, then back to monarchy, then back and forth with republics and emperors and such. They're now on the fifth version of their republic. In the same time, the US has had the Civil War, and January 6. That's "relative peace and prosperity".
> The point was governmental stability, not protection against invasion. The two are related. > If you look at, say, France, in the same time they've had their revolution A major factor in which was allegations of the King conspiring with the governments of peer rivals against the interests of his subjects. > then Napoleon Who rose to power through (and as the Directory was bankrupted by) the Coalition Wars. > then b…
Does external security cause domestic government stability?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a statement about each party's (dis)satisfaction with the current success of their party. This requires clarification. If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress. Since 1992 there have been 8 presidential elections. Republicans only won the popular vote once (2004) but also won the presidency in 2000 and 2…
> If our government was elected based on a "one person one vote" principle, Republicans would be nearly guaranteed to lose the presidency and Congress. Not at all. Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote more times than democrats since 1992, and are about to win it again. There has only been one election since 1992 where Republicans won more House seats while losing the Congressional popular vote. They’re…
Sounds pretty great to me.
I read an autobiography of Benjamin Franklin today. He spoke highly of a religious sect that refused to write their laws down. They felt it was absurd to think that they had come up with the perfect laws that would govern all future generations. If they wrote it down, future generations would consider it sacred and would dogmatically enshrine those views rather than improving upon them. Ironic that we do the same to him.
Author complains these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation. That polarisation is the very reason why those amendments shouldn't pass. You can only change the constitution if there is a consensus, by design. If you want to make a change that half the country is dead against, all the systems of balance of power will work against it (two chambers - one by headcount the other by states, filibust…
For example, I can read the second amendment --
> 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.
It is clear the national firearms act is outright unconstitutional by any sane reading, yet it was deemed "okay" by SCOTUS and passed by congress. The amendment was ignored for nearly 80 years and finally opinion seems to be shifting.
In a similar vein, the supreme court previously created a problematic "roe v wade" ruling. Regardless where you stand on the issue, SCOTUS effectively legislated that decision into existence. There was never any support in the constitution for their claims (the cut-off date in particular) or any laws passed (hence it was overturned and returned to the states). It's called "legislating from the bench".
In other words, our constitution is interpreted by a court which can just decide it means something that it doesn't.
It seems we can't repeal the amendments, but we sure can ignore them. And we can't create new amendments, but we sure can just implement them (Roe v Wade).
Personally, I'd like to see the constitution fully implemented to the furthest possible extent. We may disagree on issues, but to the point, we can amend them. A full implementation would also create more sovereign states which enable a diversity of ideas and plethora of ways to live.
Russia and China recently amended their constitution to ensure their respective leaders can stay in power permanently. Having some unchangeable bedrock in a country seems very valuable as we are all vulnerable to tyrants at some point in history.
You are factually wrong about Russia. The new constitution removes the loophole used by Putin which restricted presidency of a single person by two consecutive terms. Thus in past he has used Medvedev as a seat warmer for one term, while holding most of the real power. Because it's a new constitution, his old terms got "reset" (it's quite debatable whether such reset is legitimate or not). In theory, after the new tw…
Author complains these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation. That polarisation is the very reason why those amendments shouldn't pass. You can only change the constitution if there is a consensus, by design. If you want to make a change that half the country is dead against, all the systems of balance of power will work against it (two chambers - one by headcount the other by states, filibust…
The author does not "complain these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation [sic]" - she points out that even prior to polarization most amendments couldnt be passed. There are many other important and nuanced points in the article as well, it's neither pro- nor anti- amendment.
These people don’t seem to understand that.