3 ms·

It's not that the sides no longer agree that these things are important. They do. The problem is they don't believe they agree that they're important. They beli

It's not that the sides no longer agree that these things are important. They do. The problem is they don't believe they agree that they're important. They believe the other side has abandoned the constitution, and they know that puts their own side at a disadvantage if they stay with it. The two sides are so frightened of each other at this point that all assumptions of good faith are off the table. So, note for next version of the constitution: Make sure the first amendment establishes strict separation of speech and money.

majormajor 3y ago
Money vs speech is a good example, I think, of people not agreeing that these things are important or not. And that the "Constitution" part is not the important part. How would you get a Constitution to separate money when there are so many well-funded pushes for exactly the opposite, resulting in the situation where the courts say money needs to be protected? Before you can do that you need to get everyone on board with the dangers of money in politics, and then if you can do that, you've solved the problem because now your judges won't interpret "protection of speech" as "protection of buying political influence." You gotta win the debate either way.
- JellyBeanThief 3y ago
  > How would you get a Constitution to separate money Not that I put a lot of effort into this formulation, but how about something like > A well-informed and reasonable public, being necessary to the security of a working democracy, the right of the people to free and quick access to public information must not be abridged, but protected. And then back that up with a multi-layer prescriptive dictionary to minimize judicial reinterpretation. The terms "right of the people", "free and quick access", "public information" would defined in layer N, while the terms "right", "people", "free", "quick", "access", "public", and "information" would be defined in some layers N - M. We've had some centuries now to get better at technical writing, language engineering, and lexicography, to say nothing of IT. We should use them.
locopati 3y ago
It's pretty hard to have good faith to people who have bullied and been deceptive to attain their goal of undermining bodily autonomy.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  When you're talking about undermining bodily autonomy are you talking about Republican states banning abortion or Democrat states compelling vaccination?
  - mikrotikker 3y ago
    And I'm certain that only scratches the surface.

majormajor 3y ago

Money vs speech is a good example, I think, of people not agreeing that these things are important or not. And that the "Constitution" part is not the important part. How would you get a Constitution to separate money when there are so many well-funded pushes for exactly the opposite, resulting in the situation where the courts say money needs to be protected? Before you can do that you need to get everyone on board with the dangers of money in politics, and then if you can do that, you've solved the problem because now your judges won't interpret "protection of speech" as "protection of buying political influence." You gotta win the debate either way.

JellyBeanThief 3y ago
> How would you get a Constitution to separate money Not that I put a lot of effort into this formulation, but how about something like > A well-informed and reasonable public, being necessary to the security of a working democracy, the right of the people to free and quick access to public information must not be abridged, but protected. And then back that up with a multi-layer prescriptive dictionary to minimize judicial reinterpretation. The terms "right of the people", "free and quick access", "public information" would defined in layer N, while the terms "right", "people", "free", "quick", "access", "public", and "information" would be defined in some layers N - M. We've had some centuries now to get better at technical writing, language engineering, and lexicography, to say nothing of IT. We should use them.

locopati 3y ago

It's pretty hard to have good faith to people who have bullied and been deceptive to attain their goal of undermining bodily autonomy.

pauldenton 3y ago
When you're talking about undermining bodily autonomy are you talking about Republican states banning abortion or Democrat states compelling vaccination?
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  And I'm certain that only scratches the surface.