4 ms·

This is pretty harrowing to read. I've been fortunate enough to never go through any of this (but I don't _look_ like a 'terrorist'). I think America needs to t

by SlyShy 13y ago

This is pretty harrowing to read. I've been fortunate enough to never go through any of this (but I don't _look_ like a 'terrorist'). I think America needs to take a hard look at itself and the compromises it has made on civil liberties in the name of this supposed 'safety' that we have now.

waqf 13y ago
If America were capable of doing that in the common-sense manner you imply, it wouldn't need a written constitution.
- cpfohl 13y ago
  I don't follow...can you connect the dots for me?
  - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
    The Constitution imposes a lot of constraints on the government that make its job more difficult, presumably because those rights would not be protected if it was necessarily to rely on some inherent bit of goodness in bureaucrats.
    - busterarm 13y ago
      Let's not forget that the Bill of Rights almost didn't make it into the Constitution and was only really tacked on as an afterthought to shut down anti-Federalist attempts to scuttle the Constitution before it was ratified. And now several of those 10 Amendments have been eroded/defeated through recent law. Great job that Constitution is doing us... but I guess it paints that much worse a picture of a country without it.
    - cpfohl 13y ago
      Right: laws are needed because of an inherent lack of goodness, not because of an inherent lack of common sense. There's a big difference between the two... A caricatured example would be the serial killer who looks both ways before he crosses the street. We can agree that some of his 'core goodness' is certainly off...but his common sense is spot on.
drivingmenuts 13y ago
Sadly, I lack the faith that such re-examination of our country will happen anytime soon. The inmates are in charge of the asylum and replacing them is going to take decades.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  The only way the people take this country back is to start a third party. A REAL third party, somewhere between the moderate liberals and the libertarians. Without any outside competition, it's just recycling the same type of candidates, with the same policies and with the same disregard for basic civil liberties.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The only way the people take this country back is to start a third party. If a party was started, it wouldn't be a third party, it'd be something like a fortieth party, excluding strictly regional parties. The reason additional parties aren't competitive is structural in the electoral systems used in federal and state elections, and adding more parties isn't going to change that.
    - waqf 13y ago
      Exactly. So you have to go back yet another step and look at who has power to change the electoral system. You might think the only answer is a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority of Congress, but in fact there's a backdoor: if you have the cooperation of a majority of state governments then you can certify any electors you like. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstat... for an attempt to change the U.S. electoral system in this way.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        I think that Wikipedia article is far too sanguine about the likelihood that NPVIC would pass Constitutional muster. First, it's not likely that the wording of Article II truly grants state legislatures unlimited discretion in the selection of electors. A state law that required electors to be men or Methodists would surely be unconstitutional today. And as a result, there's almost certainly an equal protection argument to be made against NPVIC: Sure, each individual voter is participating equally in a larger process to choose the President, but that's not the process prescribed by the Constitution. The process demanded by the Constitution is a state-by-state selection of electors, and if a state legislature wants to have an election, it better be an election in which every voter of that state is participating equally. A thought experiment: Could the state of California pass a law that counted every vote for the electoral slate of the Democratic party twice? Surely not. So how can they pass a law which discounts the vote of every voter except those that voted for the nationwide popular winner? Second, if this agreement doesn't trigger the Congressional approval requirement of the Compact clause of Article I, I can't imagine what would.

by SlyShy 13y ago

waqf 13y ago

If America were capable of doing that in the common-sense manner you imply, it wouldn't need a written constitution.

cpfohl 13y ago
I don't follow...can you connect the dots for me?
- koenigdavidmj 13y ago
  The Constitution imposes a lot of constraints on the government that make its job more difficult, presumably because those rights would not be protected if it was necessarily to rely on some inherent bit of goodness in bureaucrats.
  - busterarm 13y ago
    Let's not forget that the Bill of Rights almost didn't make it into the Constitution and was only really tacked on as an afterthought to shut down anti-Federalist attempts to scuttle the Constitution before it was ratified. And now several of those 10 Amendments have been eroded/defeated through recent law. Great job that Constitution is doing us... but I guess it paints that much worse a picture of a country without it.
  - cpfohl 13y ago
    Right: laws are needed because of an inherent lack of goodness, not because of an inherent lack of common sense. There's a big difference between the two... A caricatured example would be the serial killer who looks both ways before he crosses the street. We can agree that some of his 'core goodness' is certainly off...but his common sense is spot on.

drivingmenuts 13y ago

Sadly, I lack the faith that such re-examination of our country will happen anytime soon. The inmates are in charge of the asylum and replacing them is going to take decades.

at-fates-hands 13y ago
The only way the people take this country back is to start a third party. A REAL third party, somewhere between the moderate liberals and the libertarians. Without any outside competition, it's just recycling the same type of candidates, with the same policies and with the same disregard for basic civil liberties.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The only way the people take this country back is to start a third party. If a party was started, it wouldn't be a third party, it'd be something like a fortieth party, excluding strictly regional parties. The reason additional parties aren't competitive is structural in the electoral systems used in federal and state elections, and adding more parties isn't going to change that.
  - waqf 13y ago
    Exactly. So you have to go back yet another step and look at who has power to change the electoral system. You might think the only answer is a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority of Congress, but in fact there's a backdoor: if you have the cooperation of a majority of state governments then you can certify any electors you like. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstat... for an attempt to change the U.S. electoral system in this way.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      I think that Wikipedia article is far too sanguine about the likelihood that NPVIC would pass Constitutional muster. First, it's not likely that the wording of Article II truly grants state legislatures unlimited discretion in the selection of electors. A state law that required electors to be men or Methodists would surely be unconstitutional today. And as a result, there's almost certainly an equal protection argument to be made against NPVIC: Sure, each individual voter is participating equally in a larger process to choose the President, but that's not the process prescribed by the Constitution. The process demanded by the Constitution is a state-by-state selection of electors, and if a state legislature wants to have an election, it better be an election in which every voter of that state is participating equally. A thought experiment: Could the state of California pass a law that counted every vote for the electoral slate of the Democratic party twice? Surely not. So how can they pass a law which discounts the vote of every voter except those that voted for the nationwide popular winner? Second, if this agreement doesn't trigger the Congressional approval requirement of the Compact clause of Article I, I can't imagine what would.