4 ms·

well, then go for constitutional amendment.

by raincom 3y ago

dctoedt 3y ago
The system is rigged against doing so.
- xyzzyz 3y ago
  Worked fine in the past. Consider Prohibition, for which the United States managed to pass not one, but two amendments just fine. The reason it is hard to pass amendments today is that there is no real need to do so: the system routinely works around the plain language of the constitution, so why bother changing it? Again, Prohibition is useful case study: in 1970s and going forward, the federal government managed to pass a bunch of laws prohibiting many drugs other than alcohol, without passing any constitutional amendment. Why was it constitutional? If it was, why the early 20th century Americans thought they need to and succeeded in passing an amendment to ban alcohol? The answer is, obviously, because they did have to do that according to plain reading of the document, and because people at the time cared about the following law as it actually exists more than immediate political expediency. Think about it: at the time, pretty much nobody believed you can do something like this without passing amendment, otherwise the congress would just pass the relevant bill and wouldn’t bother with amending constitutions. So, what changed in next 50 years to completely change the attitudes? The answer is that the American system of law and government has been slowly but steadily destroyed, and replaced with a related, but ultimately different legal and political regime.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > So, what changed in next 50 years to completely change the attitudes? The answer is that the American system of law and government has been slowly but steadily destroyed, and replaced with a related, but ultimately different legal and political regime. What you describe is a consequence of another, more-nuanced phenomenon at work: Over time, the population of the U.S. has increased, and the political demographics have changed. But ruthless partisan gerrymandering — plus the massive overrepresentation of small, rural, and conservative states in Congress — have given a minority of the voting population an effective veto over what would be salutary constitutional amendments. As a result, we're stuck with a system of government that in many ways is creaky, outdated, and undemocratic. People wanting to implement the aforesaid salutary changes are forced to work within the existing system — essentially, hacking it — instead of the more straightforward approach of a constitutional amendment, because entrenched interests don't WANT such changes. Want examples? Here are a few, off the top of my head: • Gerrymandering allows a political party with a bare majority in a state's legislatures to create congressional- and legislative districts whose borders are just bat-shit crazy. But the nakedly-partisan "advantage" of such districts is that they give the party in power the ability to carve up the state in a way that gives that party a number of legislative seats that are far, FAR out of proportion to the party's actual voting strength. That, in turn, makes it almost impossible for the other party to take control, even when the other party has a majority of voters. • Under the "Hastert Rule" in the House of Representatives — named after disgraced and imprisoned former House speaker Dennis Hastert, and applied by every GOP speaker since: When the GOP is in the majority in the House, no bill is brought to the floor for a vote, even if it would have the votes to pass, unless a majority of House Republicans support the bill. So: No constitutional amendment reflecting any kind of Democratic policy preference would ever get past a GOP-controlled House. And thanks to gerrymandering, even in a Dem-controlled House, no Dem-supported amendment would likely ever get the constitutionally-required 2/3 vote in the House. Incidentally, discharge petitions don't work to force a floor vote in the House: Any House member who signs a discharge petition is vulnerable to being punished by party leadership (because the names of signers are known). Moreover, House members in "safe" districts — which is most of the districts — are afraid of being "primaried" by the radical nut-jobs in "the base" of their party, who [again due to gerrymandering] wield undue influence in the primary election process. We saw several examples of that in the 2020 and 2022 elections. • The Senate's filibuster rule requires 60 votes to move any kind of controversial bill — even though (as is well known) the small states already have massively more power per citizen in the Senate than do the large states. Example: Wyoming, population 583,000 and change, has the same number of votes in the Senate as California, population 39 million, or Texas, population 30 million. So: Senators representing a decided minority of U.S. citizens can blockade a constitutional amendment. • Still another gerrymandering effect: Constitutional amendments by one party are unlikely to be approved by the constitutionally-required number of state legislatures. I could go on.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      > What you describe is a consequence of another, more-nuanced phenomenon at work: Over time, the political demographics of the U.S. have changed I agree, but in my view the relevant demographic change was mass immigration from continental European countries outside the Anglo legal tradition, which resulted in the election of a President that threatened the Supreme Court until it relented and effectively rewrote the Constitution. > gerrymandering, plus the massive overrepresentation of small, rural states, have given a minority of the voting population an effective veto over what would be salutary constitutional amendments. Both are complete red herrings. Neither party has won more than 55% of the House popular vote in my lifetime. Even if our system was exactly like Germany's--proportional voting in the lower house, 2/3 majority required to amend the Basic Law)--no party would have been able to pass a partisan amendment in even the House alone. It's theoretically possible that Senators representing a minority of voters could block an amendment, but it doesn't actually split that way in practice. Biden carried 25.5 states (excluding DC) which exactly reflects his 51% of the popular vote. Obama in 2008 carried 28.5 states (57%) with 53% of the popular vote.
      - dctoedt 3y ago
        > It's theoretically possible that Senators representing a minority of voters could block an amendment, but it doesn't actually split that way in practice. Biden carried 25.5 states (excluding DC) which exactly reflects his 51% of the popular vote. Obama in 2008 carried 28.5 states (57%) with 53% of the popular vote. That's useful info. (I'm assuming accuracy.)
        dctoedt 3y ago
        EDIT: I just realized what you did with your Biden and Obama examples. Counterexamples: Bush the Younger and Trump were both elected despite losing the popular vote — in Trump's case, bigly.
        rayiner 3y ago
        But that’s my point. Trump won more states than his share of the popular vote by winning some of the exact same states by which Obama won more states than his share of the popular vote. Clinton did the same thing, twice (even if you give half of Perot’s votes to him). What you’re talking about isn’t a structural disadvantage to Democrats. In fact it’s a natural advantage to Democrats, who are in theory the party in opposition to concentrated capital in Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Regardless, it has nothing to do with amendments. It only makes a difference in very close elections (0.5% for Bush, 2.0% for Trump). In any case it makes a difference you’re nowhere close to the mandate for amending the constitution anyway.

well, then go for constitutional amendment.

dctoedt 3y ago

The system is rigged against doing so.

xyzzyz 3y ago
Worked fine in the past. Consider Prohibition, for which the United States managed to pass not one, but two amendments just fine. The reason it is hard to pass amendments today is that there is no real need to do so: the system routinely works around the plain language of the constitution, so why bother changing it? Again, Prohibition is useful case study: in 1970s and going forward, the federal government managed to pass a bunch of laws prohibiting many drugs other than alcohol, without passing any constitutional amendment. Why was it constitutional? If it was, why the early 20th century Americans thought they need to and succeeded in passing an amendment to ban alcohol? The answer is, obviously, because they did have to do that according to plain reading of the document, and because people at the time cared about the following law as it actually exists more than immediate political expediency. Think about it: at the time, pretty much nobody believed you can do something like this without passing amendment, otherwise the congress would just pass the relevant bill and wouldn’t bother with amending constitutions. So, what changed in next 50 years to completely change the attitudes? The answer is that the American system of law and government has been slowly but steadily destroyed, and replaced with a related, but ultimately different legal and political regime.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > So, what changed in next 50 years to completely change the attitudes? The answer is that the American system of law and government has been slowly but steadily destroyed, and replaced with a related, but ultimately different legal and political regime. What you describe is a consequence of another, more-nuanced phenomenon at work: Over time, the population of the U.S. has increased, and the political demographics have changed. But ruthless partisan gerrymandering — plus the massive overrepresentation of small, rural, and conservative states in Congress — have given a minority of the voting population an effective veto over what would be salutary constitutional amendments. As a result, we're stuck with a system of government that in many ways is creaky, outdated, and undemocratic. People wanting to implement the aforesaid salutary changes are forced to work within the existing system — essentially, hacking it — instead of the more straightforward approach of a constitutional amendment, because entrenched interests don't WANT such changes. Want examples? Here are a few, off the top of my head: • Gerrymandering allows a political party with a bare majority in a state's legislatures to create congressional- and legislative districts whose borders are just bat-shit crazy. But the nakedly-partisan "advantage" of such districts is that they give the party in power the ability to carve up the state in a way that gives that party a number of legislative seats that are far, FAR out of proportion to the party's actual voting strength. That, in turn, makes it almost impossible for the other party to take control, even when the other party has a majority of voters. • Under the "Hastert Rule" in the House of Representatives — named after disgraced and imprisoned former House speaker Dennis Hastert, and applied by every GOP speaker since: When the GOP is in the majority in the House, no bill is brought to the floor for a vote, even if it would have the votes to pass, unless a majority of House Republicans support the bill. So: No constitutional amendment reflecting any kind of Democratic policy preference would ever get past a GOP-controlled House. And thanks to gerrymandering, even in a Dem-controlled House, no Dem-supported amendment would likely ever get the constitutionally-required 2/3 vote in the House. Incidentally, discharge petitions don't work to force a floor vote in the House: Any House member who signs a discharge petition is vulnerable to being punished by party leadership (because the names of signers are known). Moreover, House members in "safe" districts — which is most of the districts — are afraid of being "primaried" by the radical nut-jobs in "the base" of their party, who [again due to gerrymandering] wield undue influence in the primary election process. We saw several examples of that in the 2020 and 2022 elections. • The Senate's filibuster rule requires 60 votes to move any kind of controversial bill — even though (as is well known) the small states already have massively more power per citizen in the Senate than do the large states. Example: Wyoming, population 583,000 and change, has the same number of votes in the Senate as California, population 39 million, or Texas, population 30 million. So: Senators representing a decided minority of U.S. citizens can blockade a constitutional amendment. • Still another gerrymandering effect: Constitutional amendments by one party are unlikely to be approved by the constitutionally-required number of state legislatures. I could go on.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > What you describe is a consequence of another, more-nuanced phenomenon at work: Over time, the political demographics of the U.S. have changed I agree, but in my view the relevant demographic change was mass immigration from continental European countries outside the Anglo legal tradition, which resulted in the election of a President that threatened the Supreme Court until it relented and effectively rewrote the Constitution. > gerrymandering, plus the massive overrepresentation of small, rural states, have given a minority of the voting population an effective veto over what would be salutary constitutional amendments. Both are complete red herrings. Neither party has won more than 55% of the House popular vote in my lifetime. Even if our system was exactly like Germany's--proportional voting in the lower house, 2/3 majority required to amend the Basic Law)--no party would have been able to pass a partisan amendment in even the House alone. It's theoretically possible that Senators representing a minority of voters could block an amendment, but it doesn't actually split that way in practice. Biden carried 25.5 states (excluding DC) which exactly reflects his 51% of the popular vote. Obama in 2008 carried 28.5 states (57%) with 53% of the popular vote.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      > It's theoretically possible that Senators representing a minority of voters could block an amendment, but it doesn't actually split that way in practice. Biden carried 25.5 states (excluding DC) which exactly reflects his 51% of the popular vote. Obama in 2008 carried 28.5 states (57%) with 53% of the popular vote. That's useful info. (I'm assuming accuracy.)
      - dctoedt 3y ago
        EDIT: I just realized what you did with your Biden and Obama examples. Counterexamples: Bush the Younger and Trump were both elected despite losing the popular vote — in Trump's case, bigly.
        rayiner 3y ago
        But that’s my point. Trump won more states than his share of the popular vote by winning some of the exact same states by which Obama won more states than his share of the popular vote. Clinton did the same thing, twice (even if you give half of Perot’s votes to him). What you’re talking about isn’t a structural disadvantage to Democrats. In fact it’s a natural advantage to Democrats, who are in theory the party in opposition to concentrated capital in Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Regardless, it has nothing to do with amendments. It only makes a difference in very close elections (0.5% for Bush, 2.0% for Trump). In any case it makes a difference you’re nowhere close to the mandate for amending the constitution anyway.