4 ms·

I disagree. They had a lot of great ideas for the prevention of tyranny. They weren't perfect, and some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were

I disagree. They had a lot of great ideas for the prevention of tyranny. They weren't perfect, and some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments, but it is intentionally resistant to change to ensure proper debate and compromise so that it benefits the country as a whole.

lapcat 3y ago
> They had a lot of great ideas for the prevention of tyranny. c/had/borrowed > some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with. A compromise that didn't even work well or last, as violently evidenced by the Civil War. > The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments In the past hundred years, it's only been amended eight times. One of those was to repeal a previous amendment (alcohol prohibition). Three of the eight are related to Presidential terms and succession. Another one, the last amendment in 1992, was about Congressional salaries. The last substantial amendment, over 50 years ago, lowered the voting age to 18. Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. > it benefits the country as a whole The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole, as I already explained in my previous comment.
- lockhouse 3y ago
  > Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. Why is that a bad thing? What specifically needs to be amended?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Well, I would change a lot, but I don't think this is the place to have a long debate about that, and I doubt that it would be productive, since you seem to think things are basically fine as they are, so we don't have much common ground.
- gameman144 3y ago
  > Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. It seems that you're taking this as a sign that the Constitution isn't still relevant. I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. If the MLB were trying to update the rules of baseball to make it more exciting, and one camp wanted to do that by increasing the number of home runs while the other wanted to do it by increasing the number of strike-outs, it makes sense that they should sort out which approach is best before passing rules (or allowing flip-flopping every year) > The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole For citizens, this is so demonstrably false that I feel like I must be misinterpreting you here.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. Polls show that we do have broad buy-in on a number of issues, sometimes across partisan lines, but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Also, the leaders of both major political parties often act against the desires of their own "supporters", by which I mean voting supporters rather than their financial supporters. > For citizens, this is so demonstrably false that I feel like I must be misinterpreting you here. Here's what I said: "The founders weren't omniscient, benevolent gods. They were just wealthy landowners looking out for their own interests — it's crucial to note that they ignored over half the population of the colonies, i.e., women and black people". How exactly are you interpreting that?
    - lockhouse 3y ago
      How many of these issues need to be legislated on a federal level? Why not tackle these issues at lower levels instead where representatives are more beholden to their constituents?
      - lapcat 3y ago
        Why? State lines are arbitrary. I've lived in 3 different states over my life so far, and many people have lived in more. I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border. Moreover, leaving things to the states is how slavery was allowed before the Civil War, and how black people continued to be oppressed even after they were technically freed. (Remember that poll taxes for example were not prohibited until 1964.) So no, I'm not particularly interested in leaving things to the states. To take a much more recent example, why should a woman's right to get an abortion depend on where she stands relative to some arbitrary state line? I think it's silly and counterproductive to behave as if we have 50 separate countries, united only by "national" defense, or whatever one thinks the minimal requirements are. And we can see how the UK shot itself in the foot by stupidly leaving the EU. Local rule is not necessarily better rule.
jfengel 3y ago
The problem is that it's so resistant that there isn't any debate. Those in favor of "no change" have a huge thumb on the scale, both in amendments and in legislation. There is no reason for them to ever engage in debate when simply saying "no" suits them. Even when something has overwhelming support, it can be nearly impossible. Often, people will support something (as they indicate to pollsters) but vote against it because of the ties of politics: "I'll vote against the thing that bugs you if you'll vote against the thing that bugs me". We've had no nontrivial amendments in half a century, and even nontrivial laws are rare. The national conversation has taken a nosedive, and I believe a considerable piece of it is that there is a large minority who benefits from nothing happening. Any "compromises" happen by skirting the rules: Supreme Court judgments, Executive branch declarations, and other actions that bypass the intended routes of discussion.
- lockhouse 3y ago
  This is mostly due to the Democrat and Republican Party focusing on wedge issues to get reelected instead of compromising on the real national issues (common defense and interstate commerce mostly) and leaving these wedge issues to the state level instead.
  - bwestergard 3y ago
    The difficulty with this vision is that the states have grown continuously more economically integrated over time.
  - 8note 3y ago
    This is part of the founders design though

lapcat 3y ago

> They had a lot of great ideas for the prevention of tyranny. c/had/borrowed > some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with. A compromise that didn't even work well or last, as violently evidenced by the Civil War. > The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments In the past hundred years, it's only been amended eight times. One of those was to repeal a previous amendment (alcohol prohibition). Three of the eight are related to Presidential terms and succession. Another one, the last amendment in 1992, was about Congressional salaries. The last substantial amendment, over 50 years ago, lowered the voting age to 18. Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. > it benefits the country as a whole The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole, as I already explained in my previous comment.

lockhouse 3y ago
> Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. Why is that a bad thing? What specifically needs to be amended?
- lapcat 3y ago
  Well, I would change a lot, but I don't think this is the place to have a long debate about that, and I doubt that it would be productive, since you seem to think things are basically fine as they are, so we don't have much common ground.
gameman144 3y ago
> Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent. It seems that you're taking this as a sign that the Constitution isn't still relevant. I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. If the MLB were trying to update the rules of baseball to make it more exciting, and one camp wanted to do that by increasing the number of home runs while the other wanted to do it by increasing the number of strike-outs, it makes sense that they should sort out which approach is best before passing rules (or allowing flip-flopping every year) > The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole For citizens, this is so demonstrably false that I feel like I must be misinterpreting you here.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions. Polls show that we do have broad buy-in on a number of issues, sometimes across partisan lines, but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Also, the leaders of both major political parties often act against the desires of their own "supporters", by which I mean voting supporters rather than their financial supporters. > For citizens, this is so demonstrably false that I feel like I must be misinterpreting you here. Here's what I said: "The founders weren't omniscient, benevolent gods. They were just wealthy landowners looking out for their own interests — it's crucial to note that they ignored over half the population of the colonies, i.e., women and black people". How exactly are you interpreting that?
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    How many of these issues need to be legislated on a federal level? Why not tackle these issues at lower levels instead where representatives are more beholden to their constituents?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Why? State lines are arbitrary. I've lived in 3 different states over my life so far, and many people have lived in more. I'd rather not have the laws change radically as I cross the border. Moreover, leaving things to the states is how slavery was allowed before the Civil War, and how black people continued to be oppressed even after they were technically freed. (Remember that poll taxes for example were not prohibited until 1964.) So no, I'm not particularly interested in leaving things to the states. To take a much more recent example, why should a woman's right to get an abortion depend on where she stands relative to some arbitrary state line? I think it's silly and counterproductive to behave as if we have 50 separate countries, united only by "national" defense, or whatever one thinks the minimal requirements are. And we can see how the UK shot itself in the foot by stupidly leaving the EU. Local rule is not necessarily better rule.

jfengel 3y ago

The problem is that it's so resistant that there isn't any debate. Those in favor of "no change" have a huge thumb on the scale, both in amendments and in legislation. There is no reason for them to ever engage in debate when simply saying "no" suits them. Even when something has overwhelming support, it can be nearly impossible. Often, people will support something (as they indicate to pollsters) but vote against it because of the ties of politics: "I'll vote against the thing that bugs you if you'll vote against the thing that bugs me". We've had no nontrivial amendments in half a century, and even nontrivial laws are rare. The national conversation has taken a nosedive, and I believe a considerable piece of it is that there is a large minority who benefits from nothing happening. Any "compromises" happen by skirting the rules: Supreme Court judgments, Executive branch declarations, and other actions that bypass the intended routes of discussion.

lockhouse 3y ago
This is mostly due to the Democrat and Republican Party focusing on wedge issues to get reelected instead of compromising on the real national issues (common defense and interstate commerce mostly) and leaving these wedge issues to the state level instead.
- bwestergard 3y ago
  The difficulty with this vision is that the states have grown continuously more economically integrated over time.
- 8note 3y ago
  This is part of the founders design though