4 ms·

If a suitably-sized majority wants to amend the constitution (where "suitably sized" is defined by the constitutional amendment process), they can go ahead, alw

If a suitably-sized majority wants to amend the constitution (where "suitably sized" is defined by the constitutional amendment process), they can go ahead, always. That's why to some degree this is just pushing the issue of "tyranny of the majority" out one level - but that doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. On the other hand, electing leaders who simply decide to not follow the constitution (perhaps because they believe they have "a majority" at their backs, or perhaps not) is something entirely different.

saghm 2y ago
My point is that having a majority that isn't large enough to amend the constitution is far more common than having a supermajority aligned on an issue at any given time, and there's still plenty of danger from that majority trying to erode the protections in the constitution without amending it. There hasn't really been any serious attempt at writing a new amendment to the constitution at least since the ERA was sent to the states from Congress over half a century ago despite a fairly noticeable trend of increased executive power in the same time period (after a brief dip in the immediate aftermath of Nixon). In fact Nixon getting elected in 1972 (the same year as the ERA getting passed in Congress) is the last time any presidential candidate got even 60% of the popular vote, which is still below the threshold that would be needed for a constitutional amendment, and no one has gotten even 54% percent of the vote in the past four decades. If you're trying to argue that no majority-elected president since Reagan has had any incentive at all to try to push their power beyond that specified in the constitution, then I guess that this wouldn't be a concern to you, but I don't think it's a particularly controversial take for me to argue that there has been ample incentive for at least some of these presidents to try to increase their power.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you've written there. But I also don't see the US constitutional amendment process as anything particularly praiseworthy either, and do not think it is capable of being used as a way to rise to the occasion of, for example, the current president. Of course, it goes beyond the amendment process to the wider US political and social culture, and we are currently living in the midst of an experiment to see just how much power can be simply taken by a president who wants to do so. As the line goes: it's not about who is going to let me, it's about who is going to stop me. The USA does not appear to have particularly robust mechanisms in place to stop a power grab by the administration when there's something roughly approximating a majority in Congress who do no oppose it.
  - saghm 1y ago
    I don't disagree with your views on the amendment process either, honestly. In a lot of ways, it feels like the inertia in the amendment process is responsible for why the envelope has gotten pushed so much in other ways; when the system is too rigid to be able to provide changes that people have a desire for, the motivation for finding ways outside the system increases. It's hard not to worry whether we're approaching a point we can't come back from, and while there have undoubtedly been crises before that the US constitutional system has weathered, the only reason we can even have a conversation about these concerns is survivorship bias; a system only needs to break down once to stop being around to worry about anymore.
int_19h 2y ago
Entrenched clauses effectively set "suitably sized" to infinity. But at some point, if enough people believe the constitution doesn't do what they want it to do, they can always replace it altogether.

saghm 2y ago

My point is that having a majority that isn't large enough to amend the constitution is far more common than having a supermajority aligned on an issue at any given time, and there's still plenty of danger from that majority trying to erode the protections in the constitution without amending it. There hasn't really been any serious attempt at writing a new amendment to the constitution at least since the ERA was sent to the states from Congress over half a century ago despite a fairly noticeable trend of increased executive power in the same time period (after a brief dip in the immediate aftermath of Nixon). In fact Nixon getting elected in 1972 (the same year as the ERA getting passed in Congress) is the last time any presidential candidate got even 60% of the popular vote, which is still below the threshold that would be needed for a constitutional amendment, and no one has gotten even 54% percent of the vote in the past four decades. If you're trying to argue that no majority-elected president since Reagan has had any incentive at all to try to push their power beyond that specified in the constitution, then I guess that this wouldn't be a concern to you, but I don't think it's a particularly controversial take for me to argue that there has been ample incentive for at least some of these presidents to try to increase their power.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
I don't disagree with anything you've written there. But I also don't see the US constitutional amendment process as anything particularly praiseworthy either, and do not think it is capable of being used as a way to rise to the occasion of, for example, the current president. Of course, it goes beyond the amendment process to the wider US political and social culture, and we are currently living in the midst of an experiment to see just how much power can be simply taken by a president who wants to do so. As the line goes: it's not about who is going to let me, it's about who is going to stop me. The USA does not appear to have particularly robust mechanisms in place to stop a power grab by the administration when there's something roughly approximating a majority in Congress who do no oppose it.
- saghm 1y ago
  I don't disagree with your views on the amendment process either, honestly. In a lot of ways, it feels like the inertia in the amendment process is responsible for why the envelope has gotten pushed so much in other ways; when the system is too rigid to be able to provide changes that people have a desire for, the motivation for finding ways outside the system increases. It's hard not to worry whether we're approaching a point we can't come back from, and while there have undoubtedly been crises before that the US constitutional system has weathered, the only reason we can even have a conversation about these concerns is survivorship bias; a system only needs to break down once to stop being around to worry about anymore.

int_19h 2y ago

Entrenched clauses effectively set "suitably sized" to infinity. But at some point, if enough people believe the constitution doesn't do what they want it to do, they can always replace it altogether.