4 ms·

> 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

> 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).
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Originalism is a reaction to "activist" courts. One can argue that with the passage of the 18th Amendment, the amendment process became a parody of itself. The straw that broke the house of cards built to accommodate slavery was Manifest Destiny. You can't have both.
xlm1717 11y ago
It's not a sign of the dysfunction of a system. It's the system functioning as designed. In the history of the US, there have been only 27 amendments. Two of them cancel each other out, and 10 were introduced at the beginning, so that's 15 amendments over 226 years. We're 23 years away from the last amendment, only 8 years above the average. It's not "more impossible" now to pass an amendment than it was over the past century. Maybe more difficult, but not near impossible. It's not even the longest time between amendments in the nation's history. After the Bill of Rights, amendments 11 and 12 were mainly to resolve procedural issues. It then took over 60 years for the next amendments to be passed, all in response to the Civil War, granting the freed slaves freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote. After that, the amendments were mostly to resolve procedural disputes again, such as presidential term limits, how we elect senators, start of terms, and Congressional salaries. The major amendments after the Civil War all had to do with voting rights: for women, for those aged 18, and for those who couldn't afford a poll tax. The one time we tried to use the Constitution for social change, it failed miserably. Prohibition resulted in a sharp increase in crime, didn't stop people from consuming alcohol anyway, and ultimately resulted in amendment 21 being ratified to repeal amendment 18 and end prohibition. None of this points to dysfunction in the system to me. People don't often forget that the Constitution contains methods for amendment. See: the Marriage Amendment that was floated around in the 90s, and people today saying we'll need a new amendment to limit the power of the super-PACs. You linked to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I'm sure if a future Congress sees this as a procedural issue pressing enough to bring up as an amendment, they will. Besides that, there is not much pressing at the moment that requires a Constitutional amendment. That an amendment has not been added in 23 years and one is unlikely to be added is not a sign of dysfunction of the system. It is simply business as usual, no new amendments needed at this time.
- _petronius 11y ago
  > I'm sure if a future Congress sees this as a procedural issue pressing enough to bring up as an amendment I think you are probably much more optimistic than I am about the current level of legislative deadlock in Congress. From where I'm sitting, I see a body so polarized in its politics that it has trouble passing budgets, much less dealing with modernizing federal election procedure. The whole point of the Interstate Compact being a compact is that the advocates for it acknowledge that it couldn't be passed via the amendment mechanism because it would never be tabled in Congress -- but they do think they can convince enough states to go for it, which is the other half of the amendment process (although admittedly the mathematics are different, because they just need a majority of Electoral College votes, not 2/3 of states).
dragonwriter 11y ago
> 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.)
- agarden 11y ago
  That sounds interesting. I'd really like to read those. What sources can I go to?

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).

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Originalism is a reaction to "activist" courts. One can argue that with the passage of the 18th Amendment, the amendment process became a parody of itself. The straw that broke the house of cards built to accommodate slavery was Manifest Destiny. You can't have both.

xlm1717 11y ago

It's not a sign of the dysfunction of a system. It's the system functioning as designed. In the history of the US, there have been only 27 amendments. Two of them cancel each other out, and 10 were introduced at the beginning, so that's 15 amendments over 226 years. We're 23 years away from the last amendment, only 8 years above the average. It's not "more impossible" now to pass an amendment than it was over the past century. Maybe more difficult, but not near impossible. It's not even the longest time between amendments in the nation's history. After the Bill of Rights, amendments 11 and 12 were mainly to resolve procedural issues. It then took over 60 years for the next amendments to be passed, all in response to the Civil War, granting the freed slaves freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote. After that, the amendments were mostly to resolve procedural disputes again, such as presidential term limits, how we elect senators, start of terms, and Congressional salaries. The major amendments after the Civil War all had to do with voting rights: for women, for those aged 18, and for those who couldn't afford a poll tax. The one time we tried to use the Constitution for social change, it failed miserably. Prohibition resulted in a sharp increase in crime, didn't stop people from consuming alcohol anyway, and ultimately resulted in amendment 21 being ratified to repeal amendment 18 and end prohibition. None of this points to dysfunction in the system to me. People don't often forget that the Constitution contains methods for amendment. See: the Marriage Amendment that was floated around in the 90s, and people today saying we'll need a new amendment to limit the power of the super-PACs. You linked to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I'm sure if a future Congress sees this as a procedural issue pressing enough to bring up as an amendment, they will. Besides that, there is not much pressing at the moment that requires a Constitutional amendment. That an amendment has not been added in 23 years and one is unlikely to be added is not a sign of dysfunction of the system. It is simply business as usual, no new amendments needed at this time.

_petronius 11y ago
> I'm sure if a future Congress sees this as a procedural issue pressing enough to bring up as an amendment I think you are probably much more optimistic than I am about the current level of legislative deadlock in Congress. From where I'm sitting, I see a body so polarized in its politics that it has trouble passing budgets, much less dealing with modernizing federal election procedure. The whole point of the Interstate Compact being a compact is that the advocates for it acknowledge that it couldn't be passed via the amendment mechanism because it would never be tabled in Congress -- but they do think they can convince enough states to go for it, which is the other half of the amendment process (although admittedly the mathematics are different, because they just need a majority of Electoral College votes, not 2/3 of states).

dragonwriter 11y ago

> 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.)

agarden 11y ago
That sounds interesting. I'd really like to read those. What sources can I go to?