3 ms·

Alternatively, the US could look at a new, stronger constitution. Like, presumably no-one really _intended_ that the US constitution would make the president an

Alternatively, the US could look at a new, stronger constitution. Like, presumably no-one really _intended_ that the US constitution would make the president an unaccountable dictator; if the Supreme Court has done that under the auspices of the constitution, it's clearly not fit for purpose and should be amended or replaced. Other countries do this _all the time_. Ireland had amended its constitution more times in a century than the US has in 250 years (and even then, the US ones are pretty front loaded). France is on its fifth republic.

dpark 1y ago
I agree with this. Though this would require getting a lot of people to stop imagining that the founding fathers created a perfect document. There’s a very weird belief that the founding documents (and the founding fathers) are essentially infallible and that governing in accordance with these is the best possible option. Of course this leads to “originalist” jurisprudence which seems to consist of finding ways to pretend that whatever the judge believes is exactly what the founding fathers intended.
- rsynnott 1y ago
  Though even then, given the context, it's hard to imagine that they intended making the president an unaccountable dictator. Like, Trump's taking on more power than George III.
danaris 1y ago
This is not possible without first doing the things that I describe. (Or something similar.) Too many states are too heavily gerrymandered to disenfranchise minorities and other likely-Democratic voters for a Constitutional amendment that favors (small-d) democratic rule to pass. Same problem with a new Constitution. To the sentiment more broadly, I tend to agree: we have given our original Constitution too much deference. It is flexible, yes, but not flexible enough to deal with all the changes that have arisen since, with one of the biggest problems being the much more rapid pace of life today. As for what specific measures are needed to fix it.....god, I don't know. I can come up with a few, but I don't for a second think they'd be comprehensive enough to prevent what happened over the past 40ish years to lead to this.

dpark 1y ago

I agree with this. Though this would require getting a lot of people to stop imagining that the founding fathers created a perfect document. There’s a very weird belief that the founding documents (and the founding fathers) are essentially infallible and that governing in accordance with these is the best possible option. Of course this leads to “originalist” jurisprudence which seems to consist of finding ways to pretend that whatever the judge believes is exactly what the founding fathers intended.

rsynnott 1y ago
Though even then, given the context, it's hard to imagine that they intended making the president an unaccountable dictator. Like, Trump's taking on more power than George III.

danaris 1y ago

This is not possible without first doing the things that I describe. (Or something similar.) Too many states are too heavily gerrymandered to disenfranchise minorities and other likely-Democratic voters for a Constitutional amendment that favors (small-d) democratic rule to pass. Same problem with a new Constitution. To the sentiment more broadly, I tend to agree: we have given our original Constitution too much deference. It is flexible, yes, but not flexible enough to deal with all the changes that have arisen since, with one of the biggest problems being the much more rapid pace of life today. As for what specific measures are needed to fix it.....god, I don't know. I can come up with a few, but I don't for a second think they'd be comprehensive enough to prevent what happened over the past 40ish years to lead to this.