5 ms·

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

by 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_...
- vacri 11y ago
  ... I'm not sure how "it was a product of it's time" is an appropriate rebuttal to "bits of it are stale". I'm genuinely puzzled that you think I need a history lesson, given I characterised parts of it as stale, which I would have thought inherently included the concept "it was a product of it's time" - that things that were once fresh and relevant are no longer so.
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    My apologies. I thought the "stale" comment was directed at the third amendment in particular. Most of what I was offering my rebuttal on was this: >all suggest that there are things wrong with the American constitution. Depending on your interpretation of "Wrong", I'd either agree or disagree. But the general point I was trying to make was that I don't find too many flaws with the examples you provided, and with regards to the third amendment, I was trying to provide an example in which even older parts of the document still have a lot of relevance, despite seeming stale at face value. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence by providing the history lesson though; when I write a reply I do so imagining everyone in the discussion is reading, so while it is probably not new information to you, it might be to someone else. That's the real value in our talk here. Sorry about that, Cheers. =)
    - vacri 11y ago
      The thing is, you can appreciate a thing and admire it, and still see room for improvement. To claim there is nothing wrong with the US constitution (as the OP did) is to take a religiose view of it. One other flaw I just put to wtbob below is that the way the document structures elections, the result is a two-party system that simply cannot adequately represent hundreds of millions of people of diverse backgrounds. Given that the document was raised explicitly in response to inadequate representation, that's a problem. Is it the worst problem ever in a constitution? No, but it is still an issue. Edit: For comparison, here in Australia we have a couple of major parties, a couple of big minor parties, and a scattering of small parties all in government at the moment. Or in Germany, it's entirely normal for major parties to have to band together to form a majority in order to govern - from memory, Merkel's party gets about 25% of the vote, and has to create a coalition with other parties to get the majority required. There is space in these systems for new parties to rise, and the concept of "you're either for us or against us" is nowhere near as prevalent as in the US. These systems have their issues too, but they are more representative of their people due to their flexibility.
wtbob 11y ago
> 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.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dragontamer 11y ago
  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.
  - mvymvy 11y ago
    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including 4 small jurisdictions, 3 medium-size states, and 4 big states. http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
    - tsotha 11y ago
      It will also probably be thrown out by the courts, too. Compacts between the states have to be approved by congress.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
No there is one document- thats why they are called amendments.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by vacri 11y ago

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_...

vacri 11y ago
... I'm not sure how "it was a product of it's time" is an appropriate rebuttal to "bits of it are stale". I'm genuinely puzzled that you think I need a history lesson, given I characterised parts of it as stale, which I would have thought inherently included the concept "it was a product of it's time" - that things that were once fresh and relevant are no longer so.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  My apologies. I thought the "stale" comment was directed at the third amendment in particular. Most of what I was offering my rebuttal on was this: >all suggest that there are things wrong with the American constitution. Depending on your interpretation of "Wrong", I'd either agree or disagree. But the general point I was trying to make was that I don't find too many flaws with the examples you provided, and with regards to the third amendment, I was trying to provide an example in which even older parts of the document still have a lot of relevance, despite seeming stale at face value. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence by providing the history lesson though; when I write a reply I do so imagining everyone in the discussion is reading, so while it is probably not new information to you, it might be to someone else. That's the real value in our talk here. Sorry about that, Cheers. =)
  - vacri 11y ago
    The thing is, you can appreciate a thing and admire it, and still see room for improvement. To claim there is nothing wrong with the US constitution (as the OP did) is to take a religiose view of it. One other flaw I just put to wtbob below is that the way the document structures elections, the result is a two-party system that simply cannot adequately represent hundreds of millions of people of diverse backgrounds. Given that the document was raised explicitly in response to inadequate representation, that's a problem. Is it the worst problem ever in a constitution? No, but it is still an issue. Edit: For comparison, here in Australia we have a couple of major parties, a couple of big minor parties, and a scattering of small parties all in government at the moment. Or in Germany, it's entirely normal for major parties to have to band together to form a majority in order to govern - from memory, Merkel's party gets about 25% of the vote, and has to create a coalition with other parties to get the majority required. There is space in these systems for new parties to rise, and the concept of "you're either for us or against us" is nowhere near as prevalent as in the US. These systems have their issues too, but they are more representative of their people due to their flexibility.

wtbob 11y ago

> 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.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragontamer 11y ago
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.
- mvymvy 11y ago
  The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including 4 small jurisdictions, 3 medium-size states, and 4 big states. http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It will also probably be thrown out by the courts, too. Compacts between the states have to be approved by congress.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago

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

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]