4 ms·
There's a great and relevant Radiolab episode published just a few days ago. It discusses the Commerce Clause of the constitution[1]. Something I didn't know i
by avar 9y ago
There's a great and relevant Radiolab episode published just a few days ago. It discusses the Commerce Clause of the constitution[1].
Something I didn't know is that when the US government ended racial segregation in privately owned businesses they did so not on any sort of human rights or equality basis. Rather they argued that businesses being able to deny black clients service has a depressing effect on the economy, and is thus something the federal government can regulate under the Commerce Clause.
Today there's still people who think that was a bad call not because it ended segregation, but because it gave the government precedent to regulate other things via the Commerce Clause.
1. http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-one-nation-under-money/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...
- viburnum 9y agoThe US Constitution is basically obsolete and terrible and you can't run a decent society without stretching it quite a bit. It does not deserve the veneration it receives.
- redblacktree 9y agoI would argue that this means we should fix the constitution through the amendment process, not toss the baby out with the bathwater.
- intopieces 9y agoVeneration based on historical precedence is a fundamental weakness. It reduces the document to no more than a talisman. Powerless, ineffectual, and clung to out of comfort. It should be scrapped entirely and redebated every 50 years.
- mnm1 9y agoI can't imagine a more horrific scenario than a constitutional convention. The day that happens is the day America dies. Ok, probably a few days later when they decide to throw out the current ratification rules out and just rewrite everything. A bunch of un-elected idiots rewriting the constitution. I hope they use a new name. Calling that new country USA will be confusing. Regardless, I will not stick around here for that. Third time around is bound to be an even bigger disaster than the first two.
- redblacktree 9y agoWho said anything about a constitutional convention? The amendment process[0] is not so extreme. We've done it 27 times, most recently in 1992. [0]: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
- Clubber 9y agoIt's not such thing, it's just not equally applied to all demographics.
- leetcrew 9y agowhich parts in particular are obsolete and terrible?
- intopieces 9y agoOh, so many. There’s an entire amendment devoted to preventing the quartering of troops. It had never been incorporated and is pretty much meaningless. The second Amendment has been so twisted and misinterpreted it ought to be repealed outright and replaced with what it was intended to convey — the right of states to have their National Guards. The Three Fifths Compromise. The process of impeachment is broken such that if the Senate is split 50/50 the Vice President is unimpeachable. There is no process of removing Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution only provides they serve during good behavior, no provision for senility or incapacitation. "The Consitution: A Biography" and "The Failure of the Founding Fathers" are two excellent sources for understanding the shortcomings and history of the document.
- jeffdavis 9y agoThe Constitution mostly restricts the federal government, and gives a lot more leeway to the states (though obviously the Bill of Rights places limits on the states, as well). So arguing that it's a terrible document without a lot of stretching is basically arguing that states are far too small, and a giant central government is necessary.