4 ms·

Just make it a constitutional ammendment. I mean, obviously nothing of significance is going to change in terms of public policy, at all. This should be obviou

Just make it a constitutional ammendment. I mean, obviously nothing of significance is going to change in terms of public policy, at all. This should be obvious after Obama->Trump->Biden, and covid, and on and on really. So, given that fact, it's a little funny to poo-poo a public policy thought experiment (which is all it is) on the grounds that the courts would strike it down-- as if any change of any significance will survive to that point. But if we're talking thought experiment, just make it a constitutional ammendment.

runnerup 5y ago
Indeed! Thank you. Too many people don't see the constitution as the living document it was intended to be. It's so weird to me to keep hearing "that would be unconstitutional" as if it's some ultimate argument-ender for these thought experiments. Also, in real life, I'd be happy to see a constitutional convention to resolve quite a few things - 2A, 4th amendment, abortions, 100-mile constitution-free-zone, etc. Seems like having a well-defined constitution that we can actually follow would be much better than our current situation where we largely seem to ignore the constitution text in favor of byzantine court precedence/interpretations. I mean, on the face of it, people should see it's strange that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment in 1920 but marijuana/drug prohibition in 1970 did not (Controlled Substances Act).
- tormeh 5y ago
  That's just how common law works. If you want to get rid of the power of precedent, it's not gonna really happen, but civil law would relax it a little bit, at least. Civil law is, in practice, also using precedent, but it's given way less weight
- harimau777 5y ago
  How would we go about actually changing the constitution? It seems like there's too much polarization and entrenched interests for that to happen.
  - runnerup 5y ago
    Indeed. In an environment where we can barely pass meaningful laws, we certainly cannot change the constitution. It just seems like a tragedy that we use laws and court rulings where we should be using amendments, and using executive orders where we should be using laws. Seems it would be much, much more stable to enforce the constitution to its (letter | intent | reasonable modern interpretation) and force congress to deal with adjusting the constitution....than to short-sightedly ignore the constitution for immediate political and judicial expedience.
- hash872 5y ago
  When people use 'you'd have to change the Constitution' as a criticism, they are mostly noting that it's extremely difficult to change the Constitution, and are probably not motivated by a deep reverence for the document. The US has the most difficult-to-change constitution of any democracy- you'd have to pass two-thirds majorities in the House & Senate, and then get three-quarters of the states to sign on. It's more likely that I'll join an NBA team than that a measure to basically increase taxes is going to get that level of legislative support. So, the unlikelihood of this happening is meant to be the ultimate argument-ender, as you put it
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    > The US has the most difficult-to-change constitution of any democracy Well, still easier than changing 'constitution' (treaties) of EU - you would need parliaments of all member countries to ratify it and some countries would even organize referendums for it.

runnerup 5y ago

Indeed! Thank you. Too many people don't see the constitution as the living document it was intended to be. It's so weird to me to keep hearing "that would be unconstitutional" as if it's some ultimate argument-ender for these thought experiments. Also, in real life, I'd be happy to see a constitutional convention to resolve quite a few things - 2A, 4th amendment, abortions, 100-mile constitution-free-zone, etc. Seems like having a well-defined constitution that we can actually follow would be much better than our current situation where we largely seem to ignore the constitution text in favor of byzantine court precedence/interpretations. I mean, on the face of it, people should see it's strange that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment in 1920 but marijuana/drug prohibition in 1970 did not (Controlled Substances Act).

tormeh 5y ago
That's just how common law works. If you want to get rid of the power of precedent, it's not gonna really happen, but civil law would relax it a little bit, at least. Civil law is, in practice, also using precedent, but it's given way less weight
harimau777 5y ago
How would we go about actually changing the constitution? It seems like there's too much polarization and entrenched interests for that to happen.
- runnerup 5y ago
  Indeed. In an environment where we can barely pass meaningful laws, we certainly cannot change the constitution. It just seems like a tragedy that we use laws and court rulings where we should be using amendments, and using executive orders where we should be using laws. Seems it would be much, much more stable to enforce the constitution to its (letter | intent | reasonable modern interpretation) and force congress to deal with adjusting the constitution....than to short-sightedly ignore the constitution for immediate political and judicial expedience.
hash872 5y ago
When people use 'you'd have to change the Constitution' as a criticism, they are mostly noting that it's extremely difficult to change the Constitution, and are probably not motivated by a deep reverence for the document. The US has the most difficult-to-change constitution of any democracy- you'd have to pass two-thirds majorities in the House & Senate, and then get three-quarters of the states to sign on. It's more likely that I'll join an NBA team than that a measure to basically increase taxes is going to get that level of legislative support. So, the unlikelihood of this happening is meant to be the ultimate argument-ender, as you put it
- zajio1am 5y ago
  > The US has the most difficult-to-change constitution of any democracy Well, still easier than changing 'constitution' (treaties) of EU - you would need parliaments of all member countries to ratify it and some countries would even organize referendums for it.