18 ms·

America’s Fragile Constitution

46 points by agarden 11y ago

raceyT 11y ago
Fragile not for limiting the powers of government but for the tyranny it can enable. "it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism" Benjamin Franklin
- crvrd 11y ago
  That specific line makes it sound like Franklin thought despotism would be a result of the Constitution. But the full quote makes it obvious that he thought very highly of the Constitution: ...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. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does... Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.[0] He means that the Constitution will continue until no other form of government but despotism is possible, not that it leads to despotism. Also note that despotism and tyranny are not exactly the same form of government (the main relevant difference is that despotism can be benevolent), and that the distinction would have been more significant in Franklin's time.[1] I think that a more modern phrasing would be something like: ...the Constitution will be administered well for a while, and will last until the country becomes so corrupt that only a despot could maintain order. [0] http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html [1] http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/what-is-the-difference-between-tyranny-and-despotism/ http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/what... edit: formatting
dynomight 11y ago
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.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  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.
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    I agree. The independent judiciary, in my opinion, is what has been largely responsible for the effectiveness of the U.S Government since it's inception. This concept of a body that can rule on the constitutionality of laws and acts was a revolutionary concept. I want to take pains to emphasis that this is relative. Contemporary issues and criticisms aside (not to mention those raised in the article), it's a system that has served remarkably well, especially compared to its peers.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    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.
  - a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
    Direct election of senators was a huge mistake that has dramatically restructured the balance of power. There were originally four branches. The state governments were way more powerful.
- simonh 11y ago
  Up to a point yes, but the politicization of the judiciary through elected judicial posts and other elected official posts such as election organisation and drawing of electoral boundaries introduce serious weaknesses into the system.
tsotha 11y ago
There's nothing wrong with the American constitution. The problem is we don't follow it any more.
- maxerize 11y ago
  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.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    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.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      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, from being able to act as effectively as it might have otherwise.
      - wtbob 11y ago
        > 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.
wangii 11y ago
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?
- maxerize 11y ago
  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.
  - wangii 11y ago
    Maybe I should put it this way: US already reached its peak status, and it's very difficult to even find a way or area to "grow". In 1920s, although US became an economic super power, there were still plenty of room to grow in the area of international political system.
- adventured 11y ago
  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 fraudulent. That fraud became apparent with the collapse. This was a country that for 40 years couldn't even keep its grocery stores stocked properly. On a subjective basis, for about 20 years the USSR seemed powerful, but only when compared militarily to Western Europe, Japan and China which had all been decimated. Compared to the US they were not. By 1960-1965 West Germany's economy was already bigger than the USSR. By 1965, the US economy (possessing ~50% of all global manufacturing) was at least five times larger than the USSR economy. From 1950-1990, the USSR's economy was highly isolated, low on innovation and weak, susceptible to constant threats of famine and shock (to say nothing of the things Stalin did domestically). You could see that both in their technology and products. The US post WW2 was a global export monster, highly connected, with a very inventive economy, to go with the global reserve currency. The US achieved by 1970 a median household income of about $45,000 (in 2014 dollars) - something nations are only beginning to catch up to now. Needless to say, the USSR median household income was a small fraction of that. After WW2 the US had a truly global military position. It had North and South America almost exclusively as its sphere of influence. It had military bases in Japan and Germany. It had a system of global alliances spanning from Canada to the UK to France to Germany to Australia to Japan. The USSR had nothing even remotely like that, their few actual allies were weak and fragile.
_petronius 11y ago
> 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 Constitution explicitly contains mechanisms for its amendment and even wholesale replacement (by constitutional convention), precisely because it was acknowledged that it had to be open to revision as required. The fact that in the modern era constitutional amendments are near impossible and therefore have to be worked around[0], and the unlikeliness of a constitutional convention being called any time soon, is a sign of the dysfunction of the system. I'd also argue that constitutional originalism is a very new concept, and treating an eighteenth century legal document like a sacred text seems ... rather odd. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  >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. I don't see this so much as a issue with the modeling of the Constition, but the larger unresolved question of slavery in the United States. They largely "kicked the can" with that question in the Constitution with the "Three-Fifths" rule, but I'd argue that the scene was set for a clash regardless. I might go a step further and say that the Constitutions wasn't fragile, but because it established a strong Federal system, it set the stage for the conflict to come because the Southern states would now be accountable to Federal law, whereas slavery might have persisted under the Articles. In my opinion, did it have a hand in the war to come? Yes. Was it the cause? Far from it. The war settled not only slavery, but any lingering questions of the supremacy of that document, and it's never been questioned since.
  - xlm1717 11y ago
    Agreed. That the Civil War happened does not make the Constitution as a whole fragile. After the Civil War occurred, they removed the three-fifths rule and took away it's major weakness. >it's never been questioned since It's often questioned today by asking whether we should follow a "legal document" (instead of the Law of the Land that guarantees our rights) from the 18th century (as _petronius did).
crusso 11y ago
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.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  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.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    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.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      "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?)
      - dragontamer 11y ago
        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
ameister14 11y ago
Whoa, I wrote my thesis on this. Interesting to see their take on it. The assertion that the framers didn't understand the flaws inherent in a mixed constitutional system is false; Madison wrote about it, actually. He also predicted the failure of the Constitution, but conceded that it was the best they could do and possibly the best that could have been done at the time - without a negative (essentially judicial review, but under the purview of the senate as well as the judiciary) he essentially foresaw a fracturing. Of course, we got Judicial review a few years later, but that's not in the Constitution and is, as a result, a more fragile power.
- npsimons 11y ago
  I'm glad to see an expert come to the same conclusion that my amateur study of this subject has. The predicate in the first sentence in the article ("The Founders misread history") really rubbed me the wrong way, as I've heard so many people criticize the founders when they haven't even done a tenth of the study and research that the founders had. Perhaps they did misread history, but at least they read history, and lots of it. Hero/idol worship is not a good thing, but claiming the founders were ignorant and backwards is, quite frankly, ignorant and backwards. IMHO, anyone that wants to criticize them should be held to the same high standard that the founders held themselves to, ie, study history, lots of it.

46 points by agarden 11y ago

Fragile not for limiting the powers of government but for the tyranny it can enable. "it is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism" Benjamin Franklin

crvrd 11y ago
That specific line makes it sound like Franklin thought despotism would be a result of the Constitution. But the full quote makes it obvious that he thought very highly of the Constitution: ...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. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does... Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.[0] He means that the Constitution will continue until no other form of government but despotism is possible, not that it leads to despotism. Also note that despotism and tyranny are not exactly the same form of government (the main relevant difference is that despotism can be benevolent), and that the distinction would have been more significant in Franklin's time.[1] I think that a more modern phrasing would be something like: ...the Constitution will be administered well for a while, and will last until the country becomes so corrupt that only a despot could maintain order. [0] http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html [1] http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/what-is-the-difference-between-tyranny-and-despotism/ http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/what... edit: formatting

dynomight 11y ago

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.

WalterBright 11y ago
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.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  I agree. The independent judiciary, in my opinion, is what has been largely responsible for the effectiveness of the U.S Government since it's inception. This concept of a body that can rule on the constitutionality of laws and acts was a revolutionary concept. I want to take pains to emphasis that this is relative. Contemporary issues and criticisms aside (not to mention those raised in the article), it's a system that has served remarkably well, especially compared to its peers.
- wtbob 11y ago
  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.
- a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
  Direct election of senators was a huge mistake that has dramatically restructured the balance of power. There were originally four branches. The state governments were way more powerful.
simonh 11y ago
Up to a point yes, but the politicization of the judiciary through elected judicial posts and other elected official posts such as election organisation and drawing of electoral boundaries introduce serious weaknesses into the system.

tsotha 11y ago

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

maxerize 11y ago
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.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  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.
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    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, from being able to act as effectively as it might have otherwise.
    - wtbob 11y ago
      > 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.

wangii 11y ago

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?

maxerize 11y ago
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.
- wangii 11y ago
  Maybe I should put it this way: US already reached its peak status, and it's very difficult to even find a way or area to "grow". In 1920s, although US became an economic super power, there were still plenty of room to grow in the area of international political system.
adventured 11y ago
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 fraudulent. That fraud became apparent with the collapse. This was a country that for 40 years couldn't even keep its grocery stores stocked properly. On a subjective basis, for about 20 years the USSR seemed powerful, but only when compared militarily to Western Europe, Japan and China which had all been decimated. Compared to the US they were not. By 1960-1965 West Germany's economy was already bigger than the USSR. By 1965, the US economy (possessing ~50% of all global manufacturing) was at least five times larger than the USSR economy. From 1950-1990, the USSR's economy was highly isolated, low on innovation and weak, susceptible to constant threats of famine and shock (to say nothing of the things Stalin did domestically). You could see that both in their technology and products. The US post WW2 was a global export monster, highly connected, with a very inventive economy, to go with the global reserve currency. The US achieved by 1970 a median household income of about $45,000 (in 2014 dollars) - something nations are only beginning to catch up to now. Needless to say, the USSR median household income was a small fraction of that. After WW2 the US had a truly global military position. It had North and South America almost exclusively as its sphere of influence. It had military bases in Japan and Germany. It had a system of global alliances spanning from Canada to the UK to France to Germany to Australia to Japan. The USSR had nothing even remotely like that, their few actual allies were weak and fragile.

_petronius 11y ago

> 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 Constitution explicitly contains mechanisms for its amendment and even wholesale replacement (by constitutional convention), precisely because it was acknowledged that it had to be open to revision as required. The fact that in the modern era constitutional amendments are near impossible and therefore have to be worked around[0], and the unlikeliness of a constitutional convention being called any time soon, is a sign of the dysfunction of the system. I'd also argue that constitutional originalism is a very new concept, and treating an eighteenth century legal document like a sacred text seems ... rather odd. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

ckozlowski 11y ago
>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. I don't see this so much as a issue with the modeling of the Constition, but the larger unresolved question of slavery in the United States. They largely "kicked the can" with that question in the Constitution with the "Three-Fifths" rule, but I'd argue that the scene was set for a clash regardless. I might go a step further and say that the Constitutions wasn't fragile, but because it established a strong Federal system, it set the stage for the conflict to come because the Southern states would now be accountable to Federal law, whereas slavery might have persisted under the Articles. In my opinion, did it have a hand in the war to come? Yes. Was it the cause? Far from it. The war settled not only slavery, but any lingering questions of the supremacy of that document, and it's never been questioned since.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  Agreed. That the Civil War happened does not make the Constitution as a whole fragile. After the Civil War occurred, they removed the three-fifths rule and took away it's major weakness. >it's never been questioned since It's often questioned today by asking whether we should follow a "legal document" (instead of the Law of the Land that guarantees our rights) from the 18th century (as _petronius did).

crusso 11y ago

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.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
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.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  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.
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    "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?)
    - dragontamer 11y ago
      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

ameister14 11y ago

Whoa, I wrote my thesis on this. Interesting to see their take on it. The assertion that the framers didn't understand the flaws inherent in a mixed constitutional system is false; Madison wrote about it, actually. He also predicted the failure of the Constitution, but conceded that it was the best they could do and possibly the best that could have been done at the time - without a negative (essentially judicial review, but under the purview of the senate as well as the judiciary) he essentially foresaw a fracturing. Of course, we got Judicial review a few years later, but that's not in the Constitution and is, as a result, a more fragile power.

npsimons 11y ago
I'm glad to see an expert come to the same conclusion that my amateur study of this subject has. The predicate in the first sentence in the article ("The Founders misread history") really rubbed me the wrong way, as I've heard so many people criticize the founders when they haven't even done a tenth of the study and research that the founders had. Perhaps they did misread history, but at least they read history, and lots of it. Hero/idol worship is not a good thing, but claiming the founders were ignorant and backwards is, quite frankly, ignorant and backwards. IMHO, anyone that wants to criticize them should be held to the same high standard that the founders held themselves to, ie, study history, lots of it.