3 ms·
I'm calm, dude. Maybe say what you mean in the first place. If all you meant was "2/3 instead of 3/4" you should have said it. In much of the "democratic" worl
by AlbertCory 3y ago
I'm calm, dude. Maybe say what you mean in the first place. If all you meant was "2/3 instead of 3/4" you should have said it.
In much of the "democratic" world, changing the constitution is something every dictator does to allow himself to stay in office. What's to guarantee that we don't end up with that?
Props to Scalia. But he wasn't an Ultimate Authority.
- philwelch 3y ago> In much of the "democratic" world, changing the constitution is something every dictator does to allow himself to stay in office. What's to guarantee that we don't end up with that? That’s what happens if it’s too easy to amend the constitution. If it’s too difficult, the government either ignores it entirely or interprets it in increasingly ludicrous ways because it’s impossible to get anything done any other way. I think the US is clearly experiencing this particular failure mode, and if we want to get back to operating within the text of the Constitution, we need to tune the amendment threshold accordingly. Right now it takes 38 states to amend the constitution. For the sake of comparison, 30 states are blacklisted from doing business with the city of San Francisco because their laws aren’t progressive enough. That’s actually the highest interesting number of states I can find that all fit on any one side of an interesting partisan divide—when it comes to guns, abortions, and other similarly divisive issues, it’s almost impossible to find even 30 states that all land on one side or the other.