7 ms·

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

by tsotha 11y ago

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.
      - ckozlowski 11y ago
        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.
        npsimons 11y ago
        > 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 still overall prudes who want harsh punishments, and that's what we've got. We don't need to fix the constitution, because that won't fix the root cause which is that our society needs fixing.
        eli_gottlieb 11y ago
        >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?
        ckozlowski 11y ago
        I think that's a harsh way to put it (or maybe harsh to read) but I think you're largely correct.
      - crusso 11y ago
        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.
    - scott_s 11y ago
      The author of this piece, though, does mean deadlock. Not delay, but true deadlock.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    "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.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      Actually, deadlock should be the normal state of affairs. The world doesn't change that much from year to year that the federal legislature has to do a whole lot. People who complain about "deadlock" are really complaining Congress isn't implementing their legal and budgetary priorities. But that isn't because there's something wrong; that's because not enough of their countrymen agree.
    - maratd 11y ago
      > "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.
      - ubernostrum 11y ago
        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.
        maratd 11y ago
        How have your property rights been compromised through inaction at the federal level of government?
  - scott_s 11y ago
    I felt the author made a good point related to this, that the current system, and the current belief in its self-corrections, may be a serious problem during deadlock: "When politicians today praise America’s system of checks and balances, they seem to understand it as a self-correcting mechanism: When one branch pushes too hard, the other branches must push back, preserving equilibrium. That understanding actually encourages politicians to overreact, in the belief that they are playing a vital constitutional role. It also encourages complacency, because a system that rights itself requires no painful compromises to preserve." The problem the author points out with the American constitution is not that we have deadlock, and then we must compromise to get around that deadlock. The problem the author points out is that we can get deadlock, and the system itself has no recovery mechanism for bad actors; deadlock makes it possible for the entire system to collapse. Parliamentary systems have new elections when the existing government cannot reach a deal. That is, the system itself has a failsafe for true deadlock.
vacri 11y ago
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 leanings, I think everyone can agree that the Third Amendment has been pretty stale for quite some time, for example.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  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 allow for cooler heads to prevent the spontaneous election of someone unfit. (Personal thought: If Trump somehow gets the nomination, I motion that this be the perfect test of that body's powers.) - I'm not sure what one can take issue with regarding the amendment process. It's ensured that the document has remained flexible over the years, and was a mechanism created from the outset to fix flaws and limitations known even then. The inclusion of this process could be seen as a nod to the charges Mason and others brought that the new Constitution did not do enough to protect individual liberties. There was not enough broad support at the time to determine what they should be, and the US needed a better system quickly to replace the Articles of Confederation. The amendment process allowed them to move forward and tackle the issue at a later time. - In Revolutionary times, communications were either in person, or by letter. British soldiers stationed in the cities roamed in public, making meetings to discuss the state of affairs dangerous and difficult. Speaking of anything relating to disobedience to the King and Government in England was an arrestable offensive, a little cause or warrent was needed. So the private home was the preferred location. Well now imagine that a new directive has been passed, and now a police officer has been assigned to live with you. It's all in the context of providing housing, but he is watching, listening, and will report a disloyal word up to his superiors. It's 18th century persistent surveillance, and the colonists were outraged. That amendment today seems silly, (it's rarely been directly contested in court) but it's immensely important to establishing a Right to Privacy because of it's intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Judicial_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_...
maxxxxx 11y ago
Can you be specific when the "not following the constitution anymore" started?
- tsotha 11y ago
  It was a gradual change, but the big blow was probably Wickard, which essentially turned the states into satrapies of the federal government.

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

by tsotha 11y ago

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

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.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      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.
      - npsimons 11y ago
        > 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 still overall prudes who want harsh punishments, and that's what we've got. We don't need to fix the constitution, because that won't fix the root cause which is that our society needs fixing.
        eli_gottlieb 11y ago
        >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?
        ckozlowski 11y ago
        I think that's a harsh way to put it (or maybe harsh to read) but I think you're largely correct.
    - crusso 11y ago
      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.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    The author of this piece, though, does mean deadlock. Not delay, but true deadlock.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  "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.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    Actually, deadlock should be the normal state of affairs. The world doesn't change that much from year to year that the federal legislature has to do a whole lot. People who complain about "deadlock" are really complaining Congress isn't implementing their legal and budgetary priorities. But that isn't because there's something wrong; that's because not enough of their countrymen agree.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > "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.
    - ubernostrum 11y ago
      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.
      - maratd 11y ago
        How have your property rights been compromised through inaction at the federal level of government?
- scott_s 11y ago
  I felt the author made a good point related to this, that the current system, and the current belief in its self-corrections, may be a serious problem during deadlock: "When politicians today praise America’s system of checks and balances, they seem to understand it as a self-correcting mechanism: When one branch pushes too hard, the other branches must push back, preserving equilibrium. That understanding actually encourages politicians to overreact, in the belief that they are playing a vital constitutional role. It also encourages complacency, because a system that rights itself requires no painful compromises to preserve." The problem the author points out with the American constitution is not that we have deadlock, and then we must compromise to get around that deadlock. The problem the author points out is that we can get deadlock, and the system itself has no recovery mechanism for bad actors; deadlock makes it possible for the entire system to collapse. Parliamentary systems have new elections when the existing government cannot reach a deal. That is, the system itself has a failsafe for true deadlock.

vacri 11y ago

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 leanings, I think everyone can agree that the Third Amendment has been pretty stale for quite some time, for example.

ckozlowski 11y ago
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 allow for cooler heads to prevent the spontaneous election of someone unfit. (Personal thought: If Trump somehow gets the nomination, I motion that this be the perfect test of that body's powers.) - I'm not sure what one can take issue with regarding the amendment process. It's ensured that the document has remained flexible over the years, and was a mechanism created from the outset to fix flaws and limitations known even then. The inclusion of this process could be seen as a nod to the charges Mason and others brought that the new Constitution did not do enough to protect individual liberties. There was not enough broad support at the time to determine what they should be, and the US needed a better system quickly to replace the Articles of Confederation. The amendment process allowed them to move forward and tackle the issue at a later time. - In Revolutionary times, communications were either in person, or by letter. British soldiers stationed in the cities roamed in public, making meetings to discuss the state of affairs dangerous and difficult. Speaking of anything relating to disobedience to the King and Government in England was an arrestable offensive, a little cause or warrent was needed. So the private home was the preferred location. Well now imagine that a new directive has been passed, and now a police officer has been assigned to live with you. It's all in the context of providing housing, but he is watching, listening, and will report a disloyal word up to his superiors. It's 18th century persistent surveillance, and the colonists were outraged. That amendment today seems silly, (it's rarely been directly contested in court) but it's immensely important to establishing a Right to Privacy because of it's intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Judicial_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_...

maxxxxx 11y ago

Can you be specific when the "not following the constitution anymore" started?

tsotha 11y ago
It was a gradual change, but the big blow was probably Wickard, which essentially turned the states into satrapies of the federal government.