4 ms·

This will never happen until the significant part of the population that considers the Constitution de facto divine writ is disabused of that notion. It's the s

by austinz 13y ago

This will never happen until the significant part of the population that considers the Constitution de facto divine writ is disabused of that notion. It's the same notion that gives rise to some of the more odious forms of American exceptionalism and encourages a firewall between ideological and academic views of that document.

VaedaStrike 13y ago
It's pride that produces the odious forms of American exceptionalism, not the view that the Constitution is divine writ. Why, praytell, would you prefer the academics give us a replacement? What great thing have the academics gotten right that would have us change such a document outside the conditions it sets forth as being requisite for such change?
- comex 13y ago
  Huh? I do not think the parent was suggesting changing the Constitution outside of the mechanism it prescribes for doing so.
  - VaedaStrike 13y ago
    While you are correct, it does essentially advocate getting rid of it in that it puts forward the example of the Articles of Confederation. My issue is that it's seeking to abolish what exists presently in whatever manner it can manage it, else why would it use the Articles of Confederation as an example? Modify things piecemeal.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      If we decided to move to a parliamentary system, that would require rewriting two out of six articles in the Constitution. As it so happens, those 2 articles dominate the Constitution. You would literally be tossing out 60% of it. Does this mean the question of a parliamentary system is off the table for the United States? What would we look like as a parliamentary system. Or a hybrid presidential-parliamentarian.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > If we decided to move to a parliamentary system, that would require rewriting two out of six articles in the Constitution. No, it would only take about four sentences rewriting some of the electoral rules in Article II. Maybe a few more changes to Article II's appointment clause if you wanted a traditional parliamentary-style confirmed-as-a-block cabinet. The short version would be something like: Amendment __: The Senators and Representatives shall serve as the Electors for their respective states in elections for the President and Vice-President of the United States. In the event that an election for the President and Vice-President occurs in the period between the election of Senators and Representatives and the time that the terms of those Senators and Representatives commence, the newly-elected Senators and Representatives shall serve as electors and those Senators and Representatives whose terms are concluding and who have not been elected to the next Congress shall not serve as electors. New elections for the House of Representatives shall be held within 60 days, and for the President and Vice-President within 30 days thereafter, upon the concurrence of any two of the President, resolution of the House of Representatives, and resolution of the Senate, provided, however, that no such election shall be held within 180 days of the most recent election for the House of Representatives.
- austinz 13y ago
  I never said (or implied) that I prefer the academics give us a replacement. And neither I nor the article claim that the Constitution should be changed or discarded using extralegal means. Your response, in contrast, is exactly the sort of knee-jerk thought-terminating shoutdown response I was alluding to.
  - VaedaStrike 13y ago
    I must have mistaken your contrasting academic and ideological as an implicit preference to the academic over the ideological, I did that simply because I presumed that you were against the ideological. While I concede the point on not doing it in an extralegal means, I was wrong technically, I have a hard time reading the points in the articles and seeing how the foundational elements, such as a balance of powers, are preserved in what's put forward. From extending presidents and vice-presidents beyond their terms into 'guardians' seems to presuppose that such wasn't thought of by the founders, or that the solution they gave us (in this case the SCOTUS) isn't working. So my issue is that the items that are being proposed are, in many instances, aimed at compromising key, and functioning, and often best of class, principles. Again I put forward the item at the end where it mentions the example of the Articles of Confederation being completely scrapped. We are under some illusion that humanity has changed more than it really has. Much of the core components of the Constitution have not become irrelevant. Even the point in the article where it mentions that the US has the least generic constitution, as if that were indicative of efficacy or the optimal. Certainly there's room for improvement, but to change the fundamentals, and in such sweeping ways, is really not advisable.
    - austinz 13y ago
      Sure, I think what you say is reasonable. I don't know how much I like the ideas in this article to be honest, and I'm not really qualified to judge them. I do like the fact that people are throwing out ideas and discussing them, even if they're not good ideas.
      - VaedaStrike 13y ago
        I'll give you a hearty amen on the virtue of throwing out ideas.
bmelton 13y ago
The Constitution is by no means divine, but at the same time, its word is supreme. That said, where the Constitution may be flawed, the Constitution also defines prescriptive measures be taken to remedy it. The Constitution can be, and has been ratified, and is the appropriate measure to be taken whenever it's found lacking. The problem isn't that the Constitution is lacking, it's that those in power can simply 'interpret it' how they wish without fear of reprisal. The president and legislature can make laws that violate the Constitution, so long as it's done in a way that isn't obviously egregious, and the worst case is that the law is overturned a decade later by a judiciary that, 98 times out of 100, simply defers to the legislative authority of Congress. If we were watching a football game, and a referee simply decided to ignore an obviously valid touchdown, more Americans would be furious about that than there currently are about abuses of the Constitution, yet it's exactly the same principle. Football has a set of rules, as codified in a rule book. If a rule isn't working, the NFL has the ability to change the rule, and may do so unilaterally, but at the same time, they're obligated to publish and make everybody aware of the changes to the rules. Meanwhile, our legislature and executive branches ignore the rulebook of our nation, and a painfully small amount of people pay it any attention.

by austinz 13y ago

VaedaStrike 13y ago

It's pride that produces the odious forms of American exceptionalism, not the view that the Constitution is divine writ. Why, praytell, would you prefer the academics give us a replacement? What great thing have the academics gotten right that would have us change such a document outside the conditions it sets forth as being requisite for such change?

comex 13y ago
Huh? I do not think the parent was suggesting changing the Constitution outside of the mechanism it prescribes for doing so.
- VaedaStrike 13y ago
  While you are correct, it does essentially advocate getting rid of it in that it puts forward the example of the Articles of Confederation. My issue is that it's seeking to abolish what exists presently in whatever manner it can manage it, else why would it use the Articles of Confederation as an example? Modify things piecemeal.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    If we decided to move to a parliamentary system, that would require rewriting two out of six articles in the Constitution. As it so happens, those 2 articles dominate the Constitution. You would literally be tossing out 60% of it. Does this mean the question of a parliamentary system is off the table for the United States? What would we look like as a parliamentary system. Or a hybrid presidential-parliamentarian.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > If we decided to move to a parliamentary system, that would require rewriting two out of six articles in the Constitution. No, it would only take about four sentences rewriting some of the electoral rules in Article II. Maybe a few more changes to Article II's appointment clause if you wanted a traditional parliamentary-style confirmed-as-a-block cabinet. The short version would be something like: Amendment __: The Senators and Representatives shall serve as the Electors for their respective states in elections for the President and Vice-President of the United States. In the event that an election for the President and Vice-President occurs in the period between the election of Senators and Representatives and the time that the terms of those Senators and Representatives commence, the newly-elected Senators and Representatives shall serve as electors and those Senators and Representatives whose terms are concluding and who have not been elected to the next Congress shall not serve as electors. New elections for the House of Representatives shall be held within 60 days, and for the President and Vice-President within 30 days thereafter, upon the concurrence of any two of the President, resolution of the House of Representatives, and resolution of the Senate, provided, however, that no such election shall be held within 180 days of the most recent election for the House of Representatives.
austinz 13y ago
I never said (or implied) that I prefer the academics give us a replacement. And neither I nor the article claim that the Constitution should be changed or discarded using extralegal means. Your response, in contrast, is exactly the sort of knee-jerk thought-terminating shoutdown response I was alluding to.
- VaedaStrike 13y ago
  I must have mistaken your contrasting academic and ideological as an implicit preference to the academic over the ideological, I did that simply because I presumed that you were against the ideological. While I concede the point on not doing it in an extralegal means, I was wrong technically, I have a hard time reading the points in the articles and seeing how the foundational elements, such as a balance of powers, are preserved in what's put forward. From extending presidents and vice-presidents beyond their terms into 'guardians' seems to presuppose that such wasn't thought of by the founders, or that the solution they gave us (in this case the SCOTUS) isn't working. So my issue is that the items that are being proposed are, in many instances, aimed at compromising key, and functioning, and often best of class, principles. Again I put forward the item at the end where it mentions the example of the Articles of Confederation being completely scrapped. We are under some illusion that humanity has changed more than it really has. Much of the core components of the Constitution have not become irrelevant. Even the point in the article where it mentions that the US has the least generic constitution, as if that were indicative of efficacy or the optimal. Certainly there's room for improvement, but to change the fundamentals, and in such sweeping ways, is really not advisable.
  - austinz 13y ago
    Sure, I think what you say is reasonable. I don't know how much I like the ideas in this article to be honest, and I'm not really qualified to judge them. I do like the fact that people are throwing out ideas and discussing them, even if they're not good ideas.
    - VaedaStrike 13y ago
      I'll give you a hearty amen on the virtue of throwing out ideas.

bmelton 13y ago

The Constitution is by no means divine, but at the same time, its word is supreme. That said, where the Constitution may be flawed, the Constitution also defines prescriptive measures be taken to remedy it. The Constitution can be, and has been ratified, and is the appropriate measure to be taken whenever it's found lacking. The problem isn't that the Constitution is lacking, it's that those in power can simply 'interpret it' how they wish without fear of reprisal. The president and legislature can make laws that violate the Constitution, so long as it's done in a way that isn't obviously egregious, and the worst case is that the law is overturned a decade later by a judiciary that, 98 times out of 100, simply defers to the legislative authority of Congress. If we were watching a football game, and a referee simply decided to ignore an obviously valid touchdown, more Americans would be furious about that than there currently are about abuses of the Constitution, yet it's exactly the same principle. Football has a set of rules, as codified in a rule book. If a rule isn't working, the NFL has the ability to change the rule, and may do so unilaterally, but at the same time, they're obligated to publish and make everybody aware of the changes to the rules. Meanwhile, our legislature and executive branches ignore the rulebook of our nation, and a painfully small amount of people pay it any attention.