4 ms·

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How is starting from scratch preferable to passing 3 or 4 amendments in the current system to address the

by mburns 9y ago

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How is starting from scratch preferable to passing 3 or 4 amendments in the current system to address the largest issues we've struggled to fix over the decades?

mozumder 9y ago
Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified. It would be a lot easier to start from scratch. If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them. the entire structure of government can change. There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example. A parliamentary system is more useful. Nationalism needs to be curtailed. Services need to be redefined for the modern era.
- nindalf 9y ago
  > oversight branch And who watches these watchmen?
  - mozumder 9y ago
    is that something people haven't figured out?
    - nindalf 9y ago
      The problem of watching the watchmen is an old one. Ideally you want to have watchmen who watch each other, like how the judiciary acts as a check on the executive and the legislature. However, the person I replied to was unhappy with the current state of affairs and proposed adding another watchman. So I wondered what their solution was.
      - mozumder 9y ago
        How did other people solve it?
- mburns 9y ago
  >Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified. They would be separate battles, sure, but I think 3 or 4 amendments would solve a majority of the underlying structural problems we face. A few well-chosen amendments would break our current congressional gridlock, allowing laws to be passed to further address systemic problems but don't themselves require constitutional amendments. 1. voting rights & auditability 2. gerrymandering / district drawing 3. campaign finance Just these 3 changes alone would radically shift the accountability and representation of politicians in federal government. It would be transformative in terms of policy shifts. >If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them. This is not true. Trump is only 'protected' from Impeachment because the house is not representative of the nation. This is caused by (1) gerrymandering districts and (2) setting an artificial 435 maximum on the number of house representatives. Fixing (2) doesn't even require an amendment, technically, and would shift the electoral college such that Trump would not have won in the first place. >A parliamentary system is more useful. It would be interesting for a state to actually adopt a parliamentary system. >There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example. That is the Press. There certainly could be more explicit legal protections to formalize the role journalists play in investigating corruption and whistleblowers.

by mburns 9y ago

mozumder 9y ago

Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified. It would be a lot easier to start from scratch. If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them. the entire structure of government can change. There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example. A parliamentary system is more useful. Nationalism needs to be curtailed. Services need to be redefined for the modern era.

nindalf 9y ago
> oversight branch And who watches these watchmen?
- mozumder 9y ago
  is that something people haven't figured out?
  - nindalf 9y ago
    The problem of watching the watchmen is an old one. Ideally you want to have watchmen who watch each other, like how the judiciary acts as a check on the executive and the legislature. However, the person I replied to was unhappy with the current state of affairs and proposed adding another watchman. So I wondered what their solution was.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      How did other people solve it?
mburns 9y ago
>Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified. They would be separate battles, sure, but I think 3 or 4 amendments would solve a majority of the underlying structural problems we face. A few well-chosen amendments would break our current congressional gridlock, allowing laws to be passed to further address systemic problems but don't themselves require constitutional amendments. 1. voting rights & auditability 2. gerrymandering / district drawing 3. campaign finance Just these 3 changes alone would radically shift the accountability and representation of politicians in federal government. It would be transformative in terms of policy shifts. >If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them. This is not true. Trump is only 'protected' from Impeachment because the house is not representative of the nation. This is caused by (1) gerrymandering districts and (2) setting an artificial 435 maximum on the number of house representatives. Fixing (2) doesn't even require an amendment, technically, and would shift the electoral college such that Trump would not have won in the first place. >A parliamentary system is more useful. It would be interesting for a state to actually adopt a parliamentary system. >There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example. That is the Press. There certainly could be more explicit legal protections to formalize the role journalists play in investigating corruption and whistleblowers.