4 ms·

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.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Personally, I am a big supporter of regular (frequent), small changes to a country's constitution to support, and facilitate, social change Sure. But that's a preference, nothing more. We don't have strong evidence one way or another, nor over-arching theories supporting or rejecting seldom-messed-with versus frequently-adapted constitutions. That's my point: we haven't made progress beyond preferences. As such, denigrating the Constitution on account of its age falls flat. Modern concepts of governance were largely already in place at its drafting.
- thechao 4y ago
  There are four major structural issues I can think up off the top of my head (this is unfair — we're discussing my wife's job): 1. Modern gerrymandering is probably the Achilles heel that'll bring the US to its knees. 2. Judicial capture is the standard playbook for autocratic take-overs of democracies — there needs to be a reaffirmation process & it needs to be a "yes - no > 1/2*senators". 3. The electoral college is particularly vulnerable to bad actors at the state level, and the opportunity cost to capture the college is higher than the capture cost. 4. The Senate, itself, was a known-to-be-bad compromise to build a confederation, rather than a formal union into a single, sovereign State. I'm not entirely convinced of the last one: I kinda like the idea if 50 separate competing democracies all trying to come up with great ways to be a state, with a fairly low barrier-to-migrate.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    You're still describing the same fundamental system, with tweaks. Fundamental changes would be things like a unicameral legislature, Supreme Court without judicial review or President who isn't commander in chief.

> 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.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Personally, I am a big supporter of regular (frequent), small changes to a country's constitution to support, and facilitate, social change Sure. But that's a preference, nothing more. We don't have strong evidence one way or another, nor over-arching theories supporting or rejecting seldom-messed-with versus frequently-adapted constitutions. That's my point: we haven't made progress beyond preferences. As such, denigrating the Constitution on account of its age falls flat. Modern concepts of governance were largely already in place at its drafting.
thechao 4y ago
There are four major structural issues I can think up off the top of my head (this is unfair — we're discussing my wife's job): 1. Modern gerrymandering is probably the Achilles heel that'll bring the US to its knees. 2. Judicial capture is the standard playbook for autocratic take-overs of democracies — there needs to be a reaffirmation process & it needs to be a "yes - no > 1/2*senators". 3. The electoral college is particularly vulnerable to bad actors at the state level, and the opportunity cost to capture the college is higher than the capture cost. 4. The Senate, itself, was a known-to-be-bad compromise to build a confederation, rather than a formal union into a single, sovereign State. I'm not entirely convinced of the last one: I kinda like the idea if 50 separate competing democracies all trying to come up with great ways to be a state, with a fairly low barrier-to-migrate.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  You're still describing the same fundamental system, with tweaks. Fundamental changes would be things like a unicameral legislature, Supreme Court without judicial review or President who isn't commander in chief.