5 ms·

It's slow to change by design. I don't know that ethics and political practice really has "progressed" all that much just 250 years.

bobthepanda 4y ago
Well, amendments used to be more common. We just haven’t passed a non-academic one since 1971.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  I am confused by this post. From here: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... I see the final amendment: << AMENDMENT XXVII - Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened. >> First: Holy Sh-t: This is a long time between propsal and passage / acceptance! Second: Do I misunderstand? Do you consider this amendment academic? It sounds like reps cannot increase compenstation during their term.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    The reason I call it academic is this: > The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.[2][3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Historical_background https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_...
revscat 4y ago
I would argue too successfully. There are fundamental changes that could and should be made to the Constitution, especially in regards to climate change and information warfare.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Climate change is too big for one nation, even a big nation, I'd say the de jure solution there is more a job for international treaties (while the de facto solution is making tech such that the right action is automatically desirable).
  - revscat 4y ago
    I think the idea of codifying the repair of the environment as a foundational legal concept to be an interesting one, and one arguably necessary to successfully combat the problem. Treaties tend to codify shared values between states; since almost all modern nations are capitalist, treaties tend to focus on trade and capital. Climate thus gets second tier status, which is the opposite of the ideal.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      I can sympathise with the argument, but economics (of which Adam Smith's capitalism; Karl Marx's communism; the original Liberalism, its successor Neoliberalism, and the Keynesian form between them, are all subsets) all pull in much the same direction with regard to the environment (i.e. valuing it mainly for what it can do and only protecting it when the cost of doing so is negligible, because the nations all compete with each other for power and influence under the constant threat of becoming irrelevant due to the growth of the others. Other than a single world government, or treaties with similar effect, I don't see how to achieve what I think we both agree would be a good outcome.
teolandon 4y ago
Yeah I can't think of any Civil Rights issues that have changed at all since 1787.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > can't think of any Civil Rights issues that have changed at all since 1787 OP was discussing constitutions, structure of government. We haven't made that much fundamental progress on design of government compared with the eighteenth century. Are there housekeeping fixes the Constitutions needs? Yes. Do they reveal glaring, fundamental errors in the system's design? No.
  - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
    I truly can't think of a more fundamental element of a democratic system than who is enfranchised, and there have been two or three enormous changes in the answer to that since the founding.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    You are right. /s/ Here is a good example: <<Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons>>. If you choose to reply to this post, please carefully consider how Black and Brown Americans would feel knowing this was deeply embedded in this history of their country's founding document. (It is horrible!) This segment is widely called the "Three-fifths Compromise" in American English. It refers to the fact that enslaved people would be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining gov't representation. From a modern perspective, this section is wholly demented and supports the institution of slavery. This support for the institution of slavery in the founding document of the United States is a terrible stain upon its reputation. The biggest issue I have with the US Constitution in a modern society: It is too hard to change. (When is the last time the US had a serious effort to pass a new amendment? 1970s / 1980s-ish: Women's equality, but still it failed!) Many successful, younger democracies have found ways to allow non-extremist changes to their constitution, to support "futurism" (my own term) -- the progression of society. Personally, I am a big supporter of regular (frequent), small changes to a country's constitution to support, and facilitate, social change.

bobthepanda 4y ago

Well, amendments used to be more common. We just haven’t passed a non-academic one since 1971.

throwaway2037 4y ago
I am confused by this post. From here: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... I see the final amendment: << AMENDMENT XXVII - Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened. >> First: Holy Sh-t: This is a long time between propsal and passage / acceptance! Second: Do I misunderstand? Do you consider this amendment academic? It sounds like reps cannot increase compenstation during their term.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  The reason I call it academic is this: > The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.[2][3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Historical_background https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_...

revscat 4y ago

I would argue too successfully. There are fundamental changes that could and should be made to the Constitution, especially in regards to climate change and information warfare.

ben_w 4y ago
Climate change is too big for one nation, even a big nation, I'd say the de jure solution there is more a job for international treaties (while the de facto solution is making tech such that the right action is automatically desirable).
- revscat 4y ago
  I think the idea of codifying the repair of the environment as a foundational legal concept to be an interesting one, and one arguably necessary to successfully combat the problem. Treaties tend to codify shared values between states; since almost all modern nations are capitalist, treaties tend to focus on trade and capital. Climate thus gets second tier status, which is the opposite of the ideal.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I can sympathise with the argument, but economics (of which Adam Smith's capitalism; Karl Marx's communism; the original Liberalism, its successor Neoliberalism, and the Keynesian form between them, are all subsets) all pull in much the same direction with regard to the environment (i.e. valuing it mainly for what it can do and only protecting it when the cost of doing so is negligible, because the nations all compete with each other for power and influence under the constant threat of becoming irrelevant due to the growth of the others. Other than a single world government, or treaties with similar effect, I don't see how to achieve what I think we both agree would be a good outcome.

teolandon 4y ago

Yeah I can't think of any Civil Rights issues that have changed at all since 1787.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> can't think of any Civil Rights issues that have changed at all since 1787 OP was discussing constitutions, structure of government. We haven't made that much fundamental progress on design of government compared with the eighteenth century. Are there housekeeping fixes the Constitutions needs? Yes. Do they reveal glaring, fundamental errors in the system's design? No.
- cnelsenmilt 4y ago
  I truly can't think of a more fundamental element of a democratic system than who is enfranchised, and there have been two or three enormous changes in the answer to that since the founding.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  You are right. /s/ Here is a good example: <<Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons>>. If you choose to reply to this post, please carefully consider how Black and Brown Americans would feel knowing this was deeply embedded in this history of their country's founding document. (It is horrible!) This segment is widely called the "Three-fifths Compromise" in American English. It refers to the fact that enslaved people would be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining gov't representation. From a modern perspective, this section is wholly demented and supports the institution of slavery. This support for the institution of slavery in the founding document of the United States is a terrible stain upon its reputation. The biggest issue I have with the US Constitution in a modern society: It is too hard to change. (When is the last time the US had a serious effort to pass a new amendment? 1970s / 1980s-ish: Women's equality, but still it failed!) Many successful, younger democracies have found ways to allow non-extremist changes to their constitution, to support "futurism" (my own term) -- the progression of society. Personally, I am a big supporter of regular (frequent), small changes to a country's constitution to support, and facilitate, social change.