3 ms·

The US is hardly a good comparison: the US constitution is deeply anti-democratic when compared to other liberal democracies, and even when compared to the Stat

The US is hardly a good comparison: the US constitution is deeply anti-democratic when compared to other liberal democracies, and even when compared to the States of the US because it is almost impossible to amend ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/amending_the_constitution_is_much_too_hard_blame_the_founders.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch... ). The fact that judges are forced to invent new rights in the U.S. because a bunch of long-dead guys couldn't predict the future is, in itself, a symptom of a flawed system.

jessriedel 10y ago
That's really not germane to the point I'm addressing.
- fredThrind 10y ago
  The idea that unelected judges or putschists are required to keep a political system sane indicates that the system is flawed (in IT terms, they are hacks rather than features), so I think it is, at least somewhat germane.
titzer 10y ago
All systems at that scale are flawed, and even the founders knew this. Thus they biased decisions toward conservatism (in the classic sense--resisting change) but actually _did_ amend the Constitution, right away, with a Bill of Rights to make it even clear the construction of the document was to protect people from their government. The process is difficult, but it's happened _27 times_ (the first 10 times in bulk).
- fredThrind 10y ago
  27 times out of 11,000 proposed amendments, and as you point out, the first ten happened in bulk. I doubt that the founders planned for 2% of the population (as conservative Antonin Scalia pointed out) being able to block an amendment.
  - titzer 10y ago
    Unless you can tell something about the distribution of the quality of constitutional proposals, then the percentage is meaningless. Besides, it's designed as a document that is a scaffolding for the rest of law, and shouldn't require a high rate of change.
tremon 10y ago
Why do you assume that it's easier in other countries? The Netherlands has about the same safeguards for its constitution: It provides that an amendment can be proposed either by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate or by a convention, called into being by Congress, after a request from two-thirds of the states. In NL: it requires a simple majority in both houses, but we don't have the escape hatch of initiating such a change from lower government tiers. then comes step two: ratification by three-quarters of the states. In NL, step two is harder: the proposal must wait until the next parliament term (or parliament can dissolve itself and trigger early elections). Now it requires a supermajority (of 2/3rds) in both houses to pass.

jessriedel 10y ago

That's really not germane to the point I'm addressing.

fredThrind 10y ago
The idea that unelected judges or putschists are required to keep a political system sane indicates that the system is flawed (in IT terms, they are hacks rather than features), so I think it is, at least somewhat germane.

titzer 10y ago

All systems at that scale are flawed, and even the founders knew this. Thus they biased decisions toward conservatism (in the classic sense--resisting change) but actually _did_ amend the Constitution, right away, with a Bill of Rights to make it even clear the construction of the document was to protect people from their government. The process is difficult, but it's happened _27 times_ (the first 10 times in bulk).

fredThrind 10y ago
27 times out of 11,000 proposed amendments, and as you point out, the first ten happened in bulk. I doubt that the founders planned for 2% of the population (as conservative Antonin Scalia pointed out) being able to block an amendment.
- titzer 10y ago
  Unless you can tell something about the distribution of the quality of constitutional proposals, then the percentage is meaningless. Besides, it's designed as a document that is a scaffolding for the rest of law, and shouldn't require a high rate of change.

tremon 10y ago

Why do you assume that it's easier in other countries? The Netherlands has about the same safeguards for its constitution: It provides that an amendment can be proposed either by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate or by a convention, called into being by Congress, after a request from two-thirds of the states. In NL: it requires a simple majority in both houses, but we don't have the escape hatch of initiating such a change from lower government tiers. then comes step two: ratification by three-quarters of the states. In NL, step two is harder: the proposal must wait until the next parliament term (or parliament can dissolve itself and trigger early elections). Now it requires a supermajority (of 2/3rds) in both houses to pass.