5 ms·

So one way or another, the population will reach its breaking point, and the Constitution will change.

by m-p-3 4y ago

epicureanideal 4y ago
If a population not significantly a majority of the country “reaches a breaking point”, that sounds like it would not go well.
- rybosome 4y ago
  It won’t. This is going to be a decade of strife and instability.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > This is going to be a decade of strife and instability. “decade” is quite optimistic.
UberFly 4y ago
No, more like one of the broken parts will create their own Constitution.
- mlindner 4y ago
  The US tried that already in 1861, it didn't go well. Also you're advocating for the idea that Democracy is a bad idea here.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    “Democracy” isn’t a one-dimensional issue. How you make decisions (majority vote) is one dimension. But who makes the decision—what group does the voting and is bound by the results of voting—is another dimension. Many countries balance these issues by having different levels of voting. Distinct communities wishing to govern themselves is a nearly universal phenomenon. My country exists because we didn’t want to be in a body politic with Pakistanis. It was our right to decide we should have our own government where we, and not they, voted on the laws that governed us. Dismissively comparing all such impulses to the Civil War is intellectually lazy. Self determination is a widely recognized political right. If folks in Alabama don’t want folks in California to have a say in their affairs, they have that right. That must be balanced against other practicalities of course. But letting different groups govern themselves is conceptually part of “democracy” just as much as “one person one vote.”
    - mistermann 4y ago
      If the secret of the dimensionality of reality was ever to seep out into the broad memeplex (particularly if the idea caught on with young people), I have a feeling our zoo keepers would have a bit of trouble on their hands.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Just because it was tried and "failed" once before doesn't mean that people don't still believe that it can be tried and made to work the next time. The concept of a split US is not unattractive to a much larger number of people than you might be willing to give credit. There's also the people that will support a movement not because they fully support it, but mainly just because it's screwing the "system" and watching the chaos. Back in the mid-90s, I was a video journalist covering the Republic of Texas[0] movement to secede (or in their words to recognize the illegality of Texas being annexed into the Union). It was very interesting how it was successfully progressing through the court system, but then went to crazy town with all of the liens, attempting to print their own money, and the kidnappings. However, there were the typical people denouncing their US citizenship and signing up to join to the Republic of Texas. The thing that surprised me was the governments of other countries signed up in recognition of the RoT as a legit government. I get that individual peoples wanting to see the world burn, but seeing governments sign up for it was what got me. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Republic_of_Texas_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Repu...
    - wincy 4y ago
      Could a state democratically elect to secede from the union? What if a National vote was held and a majority agreed to split up the USA? At what point could we democratically all agree we think the other side is crazy, and ask to peacefully take our ball and go home?
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        The 10th amendment basically says any power not granted to the federal government and not banned by the Constitution is left to the state. Secession is never mentioned in the Constitution and as such states have every right to vote to leave. The Supreme Court has previously erroneously ruled that the federal government had the authority to stop it despite that power not having been granted to the federal government.
        HaZeust 4y ago
kepler1 4y ago
On what issues are we going to reach a breaking point that calls for Constitutional change?
- HaZeust 4y ago
  I firmly believe it'll be a catalyst that reminds "The People" that they were MEANT to be the fourth check and balance, and that the check and balance system was NOT abstracted for just political institutions to provide leverage against each other's tension. The founder of the idea of "checks and balances" themselves (Montesquieu, Secondat) said it, the Founding Fathers who were influenced by the two (Madison) wanted to charter it (Federalist n. 10), and Hobbes argued for it in Leviathan. The writing has been on the wall for CENTURIES to include The People as its own entity within the ontological power-struggle of American politics - we were just led to forget our own history.
  - paganel 4y ago
    As a big fan of Jean-Jacques myself I also dig the volonté générale/will of the People, the trouble is that it's quite difficult to say what that "will" really is, first, and second, and just as important, who the People actually is. To be honest I don't think that in these past ~250 years we've made that big of a progress in answering those two fundamental questions. I mean, the US Constitution starts with the very rousseau-ist "We the People of the United States", but a major part of the population living in said United States wasn't considered (fully) part of said People until the mid-19th century, some say that even now that process is an ongoing project.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  The biggest issue in my mind is the potential for the election deniers to gain real power. If elections no longer work as intended, I don’t think anybody can predict what the outcome will be.
stale2002 4y ago
If there is a strong enough popular support for taking more extreme actions, then there should be strong enough support to change the constitution the normal way. For people who want the constitution changed, thats the dilemma they have to deal with. If they don't have enough support to do it the regular way, then maybe the more silly and extreme solutions aren't justified either.
- hardtke 4y ago
  The primary flaw in the constitution is that smaller states have disproportionate power (Senate and Electoral College) and will never give up or dilute this power. Even worse, equal representation for each state in the Senate is literally the only part of the constitution that cannot be amended. So even with overwhelming popular support there is an absolute barrier to reform.
  - vkou 4y ago
    On the bright side, senatorial races can't be gerrymandered. On the less bright side, voter suppression and disenfranchisement can fix them a senate race as well as any other.
    - guelo 4y ago
      Senatorial races were gerrymandered in the 19th century when they were converting territories into states. We are stuck with the results of those political battles forever.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    The problem with the electoral college is not one with the constitution. The house of representatives could easily reapportion seats and expand it's size to be more in line with the populations of the states, and these readjust the electoral votes to be closer to the popular vote. But they don't. Why? Perhaps they give up more as individuals than they gain in doing so?
  - sokoloff 4y ago

So one way or another, the population will reach its breaking point, and the Constitution will change.

by m-p-3 4y ago

So one way or another, the population will reach its breaking point, and the Constitution will change.

If a population not significantly a majority of the country “reaches a breaking point”, that sounds like it would not go well.

rybosome 4y ago
It won’t. This is going to be a decade of strife and instability.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > This is going to be a decade of strife and instability. “decade” is quite optimistic.

UberFly 4y ago

No, more like one of the broken parts will create their own Constitution.

mlindner 4y ago
The US tried that already in 1861, it didn't go well. Also you're advocating for the idea that Democracy is a bad idea here.
- rayiner 4y ago
  “Democracy” isn’t a one-dimensional issue. How you make decisions (majority vote) is one dimension. But who makes the decision—what group does the voting and is bound by the results of voting—is another dimension. Many countries balance these issues by having different levels of voting. Distinct communities wishing to govern themselves is a nearly universal phenomenon. My country exists because we didn’t want to be in a body politic with Pakistanis. It was our right to decide we should have our own government where we, and not they, voted on the laws that governed us. Dismissively comparing all such impulses to the Civil War is intellectually lazy. Self determination is a widely recognized political right. If folks in Alabama don’t want folks in California to have a say in their affairs, they have that right. That must be balanced against other practicalities of course. But letting different groups govern themselves is conceptually part of “democracy” just as much as “one person one vote.”
  - mistermann 4y ago
    If the secret of the dimensionality of reality was ever to seep out into the broad memeplex (particularly if the idea caught on with young people), I have a feeling our zoo keepers would have a bit of trouble on their hands.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Just because it was tried and "failed" once before doesn't mean that people don't still believe that it can be tried and made to work the next time. The concept of a split US is not unattractive to a much larger number of people than you might be willing to give credit. There's also the people that will support a movement not because they fully support it, but mainly just because it's screwing the "system" and watching the chaos. Back in the mid-90s, I was a video journalist covering the Republic of Texas[0] movement to secede (or in their words to recognize the illegality of Texas being annexed into the Union). It was very interesting how it was successfully progressing through the court system, but then went to crazy town with all of the liens, attempting to print their own money, and the kidnappings. However, there were the typical people denouncing their US citizenship and signing up to join to the Republic of Texas. The thing that surprised me was the governments of other countries signed up in recognition of the RoT as a legit government. I get that individual peoples wanting to see the world burn, but seeing governments sign up for it was what got me. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Republic_of_Texas_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Repu...
  - wincy 4y ago
    Could a state democratically elect to secede from the union? What if a National vote was held and a majority agreed to split up the USA? At what point could we democratically all agree we think the other side is crazy, and ask to peacefully take our ball and go home?
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      The 10th amendment basically says any power not granted to the federal government and not banned by the Constitution is left to the state. Secession is never mentioned in the Constitution and as such states have every right to vote to leave. The Supreme Court has previously erroneously ruled that the federal government had the authority to stop it despite that power not having been granted to the federal government.
      - HaZeust 4y ago

kepler1 4y ago

On what issues are we going to reach a breaking point that calls for Constitutional change?

HaZeust 4y ago
I firmly believe it'll be a catalyst that reminds "The People" that they were MEANT to be the fourth check and balance, and that the check and balance system was NOT abstracted for just political institutions to provide leverage against each other's tension. The founder of the idea of "checks and balances" themselves (Montesquieu, Secondat) said it, the Founding Fathers who were influenced by the two (Madison) wanted to charter it (Federalist n. 10), and Hobbes argued for it in Leviathan. The writing has been on the wall for CENTURIES to include The People as its own entity within the ontological power-struggle of American politics - we were just led to forget our own history.
- paganel 4y ago
  As a big fan of Jean-Jacques myself I also dig the volonté générale/will of the People, the trouble is that it's quite difficult to say what that "will" really is, first, and second, and just as important, who the People actually is. To be honest I don't think that in these past ~250 years we've made that big of a progress in answering those two fundamental questions. I mean, the US Constitution starts with the very rousseau-ist "We the People of the United States", but a major part of the population living in said United States wasn't considered (fully) part of said People until the mid-19th century, some say that even now that process is an ongoing project.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
The biggest issue in my mind is the potential for the election deniers to gain real power. If elections no longer work as intended, I don’t think anybody can predict what the outcome will be.

stale2002 4y ago

If there is a strong enough popular support for taking more extreme actions, then there should be strong enough support to change the constitution the normal way. For people who want the constitution changed, thats the dilemma they have to deal with. If they don't have enough support to do it the regular way, then maybe the more silly and extreme solutions aren't justified either.

hardtke 4y ago
The primary flaw in the constitution is that smaller states have disproportionate power (Senate and Electoral College) and will never give up or dilute this power. Even worse, equal representation for each state in the Senate is literally the only part of the constitution that cannot be amended. So even with overwhelming popular support there is an absolute barrier to reform.
- vkou 4y ago
  On the bright side, senatorial races can't be gerrymandered. On the less bright side, voter suppression and disenfranchisement can fix them a senate race as well as any other.
  - guelo 4y ago
    Senatorial races were gerrymandered in the 19th century when they were converting territories into states. We are stuck with the results of those political battles forever.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  The problem with the electoral college is not one with the constitution. The house of representatives could easily reapportion seats and expand it's size to be more in line with the populations of the states, and these readjust the electoral votes to be closer to the popular vote. But they don't. Why? Perhaps they give up more as individuals than they gain in doing so?
- sokoloff 4y ago