Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:51 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
I think some of y'all are associating parliamentary systems with multi-party systems a little too much. As I understand it, it's more a question of the specifics of how members of the legislature are elected (stuff like "first-past-the-post" voting and single-member districts) that produces a two-party system, as opposed to the difference between a presidential system vs. a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems are not at all incompatible with two-party systems, and historically there have been parliamentary democracies with two-party systems.
It depends what you mean by a "two-party system". If you mean a system where there are two major parties and several smaller ones, then yes, that's part of FPTP in a parliamentary system.

But if by "two-party system" you mean two and only two parties, as is the case in the United States, then no, that's not found in modern parliamentary democracies. Since World War I in Canada, and before that in the UK, there have been smaller parties as well as the two big ones; and note that the "big ones" can change over time. For example, in Britain, the Liberals were a powerhouse for the latter part of the 19th century, but lost their support after the War. In Canada, in the past 25 years, the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and the Conservatives have each formed government, while the Bloc Québécois, the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party have all in turn been the Official Opposition.

And that's not really unusual in a parliamentary system, where the party system is much more fluid, generally, than the duopoly party system in the United States.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #52  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:55 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree with the others. You cannot write something that will get rid of court cases and disputes about its meaning. There are debates about statutory construction all of the time.
Exactly. If you don't want court fights about the meaning of a constitutional provision, your new Constitution has to ban judicial review.

Which is not unheard of. France, for example, is clearly a democratic republic, with protections for individual rights, but the scope of judicial review is much more limited and not done through the ordinary courts.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #53  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:35 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,830
Our current Constitution is deeply flawed because its creators were amateurs who didn't know what they were doing. But you can hardly blame them for that: They tried their best; there just wasn't much precedent for what they were trying, so they couldn't have known how badly they'd botch it.

Nowadays, though, we've got people who should know better, but who would set out to deliberately make it ambiguous, vague, and poorly-structured. And a lot of those folks are the ones who would be doing the re-writing.

We could do lot better, but I'm not confident that we would.
  #54  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
np

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-29-2019 at 01:36 PM.
  #55  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Our current Constitution is deeply flawed because its creators were amateurs who didn't know what they were doing. ...
Amateurs?

Madison has been in Office for over a dozen years. He got advice by mail from Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, and John Adams. Geo Washington Presided. Rutledge has ben in politics for over 20 years. Not to mention Alexander Hamilton ,William Paterson,Edmund Randolph and many other Founding Fathers.

They had seen how the Articles of Confederation didn't work , and had the Constitutions of several states to base their work on.

Not to mention, many, many nations have based their Constitutions on our 'flawed one". It has worked well for 200 years.
  #56  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:54 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Amateurs?



Madison has been in Office for over a dozen years. He got advice by mail from Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, and John Adams. Geo Washington Presided. Rutledge has ben in politics for over 20 years. Not to mention Alexander Hamilton ,William Paterson,Edmund Randolph and many other Founding Fathers.



They had seen how the Articles of Confederation didn't work , and had the Constitutions of several states to base their work on.
Agreed! I was going to post something like this - the group that met in Philadelphia was one of the most experienced group of people versed in self-government in the western world. They had an impressive mixture of experience in government and detailed research into how governments work and how they fail. Madison and Mason in particular stand out in that regard. They certainly weren't amateurs.


Quote:
Not to mention, many, many nations have based their Constitutions on our 'flawed one".

The track record of other countries based on the US model has not been very impressive. This is one area where commenting on American exceptionalism does have some weight.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #57  
Old 06-29-2019, 02:26 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,830
Plenty of other nations have used our Constitution as a starting point or inspiration, but then improved on it. That's the natural way that progression of ideas works. But our Founders didn't have those other examples to work from.

Look at any modern constitution, and it'll be very, very different, as a result of all of those incremental improvements and learning from others' example.

Saying that our Constitution must be the best because so many others are based on it is like saying that the Model T is the best car.
  #58  
Old 06-29-2019, 02:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Plenty of other nations have used our Constitution as a starting point or inspiration, but then improved on it. That's the natural way that progression of ideas works. But our Founders didn't have those other examples to work from.

Look at any modern constitution, and it'll be very, very different, as a result of all of those incremental improvements and learning from others' example.

Saying that our Constitution must be the best because so many others are based on it is like saying that the Model T is the best car.
The same with ours, there are a good number of amendments.

and who said "the best"? I mean, there is a huge gap between "the best" and "deeply flawed".

What is wrong with the Constitution?

Sure, there's the Electoral college, which would have made a difference in one recent race. That's bad, but it worked for centuries before.
  #59  
Old 06-29-2019, 02:58 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure, there's the Electoral college, which would have made a difference in one recent race. That's bad, but it worked for centuries before.
The Electoral College gave us the presidencies of George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

And Rutherford Hayes was no prize.
  #60  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:57 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Look at any modern constitution, and it'll be very, very different, as a result of all of those incremental improvements and learning from others' example.
My father used to say that the constitution of the Soviet Union was one of the finest guarantees of human freedom in history, until you got to the fine print.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 69
The Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R. has the right, in respect of those branches of administration and economy which come within the jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R., to suspend decisions and orders of the Councils of People's Commissars of the Union Republics and to annul orders and instructions of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 113 ff
ARTICLE 113. Supreme supervisory power over the strict execution of the laws by all People's Commissariats and institutions subordinated to them, as well as by public servants and citizens of the U.S.S.R. is vested in the Procurator of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 114. The Procurator of the U.S.S.R. is appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for a term of seven years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 146
The Constitution of the U.S.S.R. may be amended only by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. adopted by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast in each of its Chambers.
In other words, all power eventually flowed from the Supreme Soviet, which even had the power to veto any attempt to change the law.

But the first 68 sections were a vast improvement over the U.S. Constitution.
  #61  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:03 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,097
I would not support a new constitution, because it's not possible. When there's a consensus that this constitution no longer serves its purpose, that's the end of America as we know it. America will probably disintegrate into smaller "Americas." I don't think that will necessarily happen anytime soon. I think we'll fight to preserve the constitution and try to come to an, ahem, understanding, as we have in the past. But if one major party ends up saying "You know, fuck Article, I'm president for life and by the way, no more brown people in the country." Or if 'the libs' 'come fer yer guns' I could see factions forming to say "Okay, the experiment's over. Was fun while it lasted."
  #62  
Old 06-29-2019, 10:24 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,446
There are ways I wish the Constitution could be revised; for example I really wish there was a semi-Parliamentary way of giving small special interest factions more voice; but realistically it can't happen. First, the ideological split between progressive and conservative is so severe today that the two sides wouldn't even be able to agree on what purpose a Constitution ought to serve. let alone the specifics of the content. Second, almost nobody other than libertarians really believes anymore in the bottom-up grass roots Enlightenment theory of democracy- government of the people, by the people, for the people- that was the ideological foundation that (most of) the Framers attempted to institute. Collectivism of one sort or another has almost completely replaced that. For all its faults, almost any change to the Constitution would be for the worse from the viewpoint of individual rights and freedoms.

Last edited by Lumpy; 06-29-2019 at 10:26 PM. Reason: ETA
  #63  
Old 06-30-2019, 07:26 PM
Lubricious Integument is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I always get a kick out of the Preamble to the US Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...." Um ... if it's perfect already, how can you make it more perfect?
That is a literary device.

One of the lesser known founding fathers, Vince Lombardi, allegedly once said "...if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." According to legend he demanded that the opening of the preamble begin "We the People of the United States, while chasing perfection in order to catch a more excellent union..."

As the story goes, one Mr. Morris said "That's not bad Vince, but too wordy. You sound like a pretentious douchebag" and revised the quote to what made the final edit in the constitution.

Cite: this was on School House Rock one Saturday morning around 1975 or so.
  #64  
Old 07-01-2019, 06:37 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,097
The challenge I see in changing the constitution is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The Constitution was written in a way the protected the interests of the rural, slave-owning Democratic South. It gave smaller states disproportionately more representation relative to its actual population. The Constitution gave disproportionate power to a population that was inherently more racist, more authoritarian, and less egalitarian than their counterparts. Those same flaws are still there, and there probably won't be any changes to the Constitution that call for our society to be more inclusive because that's not what the white nationalists who support the originalist interpretation of the Constitution support. Their view of the Constitution supports their view of what Republicanism means and in their view, it is the cornerstone of the American nation-state.

Nobody is going to change that anytime soon. People who want something more than what the Constitution offers will either have to work within the framework of the constitution and, in a sense, use grassroots politics, congress, and local governments to work around the Constitution's limits, or they may simply try to secede and form a federation of post-American states.
  #65  
Old 07-02-2019, 09:14 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not to mention, many, many nations have based their Constitutions on our 'flawed one". It has worked well for 200 years.
I'll give you the US situation for sure .... can you name any others which have lasted any more than say a decade or so before collapsing into anarchy with it's inherent tendency to authoritarianism?

I've cited this previously but an example that this inherent weakness was recognised is the Japanese constitution which was imposed by the US in the aftermath of WWII. The drafting team was lead by Col. Kades who produced the final document in less than a week. Rather than rebadge a version of the US constitution, it was reportedly may not even have been discussed during the drafting process.

John Dower's Embracing Defeat (1999)
  #66  
Old 07-03-2019, 12:33 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
I'll give you the US situation for sure .... can you name any others which have lasted any more than say a decade or so before collapsing into anarchy with it's inherent tendency to authoritarianism?
Australia.

Here is a huge long discussion on the subject.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...tution-had-the
  #67  
Old 07-03-2019, 12:47 AM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Transplanted!
Posts: 19,319
I would have to say no, although I would love to see the introduction of a multi-party, parliamentary system which would allow minor parties to participate in the government. The problem is that the roadmap currently in place for enacting a new Constitution is heavily biased towards low-population, conservative states simply because ratification would be on a state-by-state basis, rather than by population. Less than a million voters in Wyoming would have just as much say in this question as the millions and millions of voters of California.
__________________
Change your latitude, change your attitude.
  #68  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:47 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Australia
Really? Have a passing familiarity of the document and it’s development and I think that’s a bloody long stretch.
Did the Australian Founding Fathers consider the US model? Would be surprised if they didn’t but they went with a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. They chose to separate Head of Government and Head of State, didn’t incorporate a Bill of Rights and all manner of differences in governance structures.
But 120 years without a civil war, revolution or coup and functional independence without a shot being fired, we’ve done OK.
  #69  
Old 07-03-2019, 06:34 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
I'll give you the US situation for sure .... can you name any others which have lasted any more than say a decade or so before collapsing into anarchy with it's inherent tendency to authoritarianism?

I've cited this previously but an example that this inherent weakness was recognised is the Japanese constitution which was imposed by the US in the aftermath of WWII. The drafting team was lead by Col. Kades who produced the final document in less than a week. Rather than rebadge a version of the US constitution, it was reportedly may not even have been discussed during the drafting process.

John Dower's Embracing Defeat (1999)
This is quite correct, and to my knowledge, US advisers don't necessarily advocate embracing the US model but models which are likely to succeed based on the circumstances and conditions present in their society.

And I'll add that the US Constitution hasn't necessarily worked well. We damn near split into two separate countries in a horrific civil war, and three of the most important amendments were ratified only by making their ratification by Confederate states a condition for reentry into the Union.

The Constitution, much of which survives in its original form, was not really a democracy but a republic, which leaves it out of step with the movement to embrace democratic reforms and expand the franchise that occurred globally throughout much of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
  #70  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:43 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,842
Having grown up in the US and lived 5/8 of my life in Canada, I am not sure a parliamentary system is best. Generally, anything the prime minister wants the prime minister gets. For if he is rebuffed, he dissolves parliament and calls a new election and very few sitting members want that.

The big problem with the US constitution is the outlandish power it gives to small, mainly rural, states. And that cannot even be remedied by amendment since the amendment clause forbids that. I suppose you could start by amending the amendment clause, but that would never get past 38 states. An amendment to change the presidential election system would be possible, but I cannot see it being ratified either. As for a new constitution, hopeless. It would almost certainly come out worse.

The big change I would make is to seriously limit money in politics and stop lobbying. I don't know how to do that. There are certainly lobbyists in Canada, but they seem to have much less influence than in the US.

Here is one clear advantage to the parliamentary system. When Trudeau (père) decided Canada would have medicare, Canada got medicare. But if some future PM decided to abolish it, it would be abolished. (Except it is actually done province by province, so all he could is abolish requiring provinces to offer it.)
  #71  
Old 07-10-2019, 01:33 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
There are changes I'd like to see in our Constitution. But I'd rather see them enacted through amendments than through a complete re-write.

I see our current Constitution as a document that's around 90% good and 10% flawed. And I'd worry that a re-write would be more likely to mess up the good parts rather than fix the flaws.
That's pretty much where I'd come down too.
  #72  
Old 07-10-2019, 01:45 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
But I'm a polite guy. I'd tip my hat to the new Constitution.
  #73  
Old 07-10-2019, 06:09 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Transplanted!
Posts: 19,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
But I'm a polite guy. I'd tip my hat to the new Constitution.
Right before you pick up your guitar and play?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
__________________
Change your latitude, change your attitude.
  #74  
Old 07-10-2019, 06:38 PM
SCAdian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyHomie View Post
What's more, the system of government that we have stands in sharp contrast to the parliamentary system employed by every (or almost every) other First-World democracy.
And we should care about this ... why?
  #75  
Old 07-10-2019, 07:02 PM
SCAdian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
This is confusingly written. I see it as every state is allowed a well-regulated militia with the right to bear arms, not an individual right to bear arms.
I see it as very clearly stating that it is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" that shall not be infringed.

And even if it's restricted to the militia, why not let the members of said militia save the government money by buying their own weapons if they want?
  #76  
Old 07-10-2019, 07:19 PM
SCAdian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
But if by "two-party system" you mean two and only two parties, as is the case in the United States
Really? I don't think I've ever voted in a national election with fewer than five -- certainly not with fewer than four -- choices on the ballot.

The only major change I would like with the electoral college is to require that electoral votes be proportionate to the popular vote (perhaps allowing half or even quarter points) -- none of this winner-take-all nonsense.
  #77  
Old 07-10-2019, 07:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
....

The big change I would make is to seriously limit money in politics and stop lobbying. I don't know how to do that. There are certainly lobbyists in Canada, but they seem to have much less influence than in the US.

Here is one clear advantage to the parliamentary system. When Trudeau (père) decided Canada would have medicare, Canada got medicare. But if some future PM decided to abolish it, it would be abolished. (Except it is actually done province by province, so all he could is abolish requiring provinces to offer it.)
We'd have to meddle with the 1st Ad, and I am against that.

I count that as a disadvantage. Yes, I would love UHC, but one guy deciding to spend that much money on such a large program? Nope. Sure, you can get something like UHC, which would be great, but think of the crap a trump could pull. And not all your PMs have been great, not by any means.
  #78  
Old 07-10-2019, 07:43 PM
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,347
I might, under ideal & conceivable circumstances, wish for a new Constitution. But my immediate reaction to anything remotely resembling a Constitutional Convention is to do everything in my power to stop it. We just had exactly that scenario play out in New York, which officially has it on the agenda at intervals. It's an invitation to powerful and monied interests to stack the deck, to deluge the media with one-sided depictions of a proposed change, to get people representing their perspective seated as delegates.

I might feel different if a very long-range movement with long-range objectives were to arise and created extremely democratic mechanisms for discussion and feedback. That's not the appearance of most social change movements, to be honest. They tend to spell out a set of objectives and to go after them like a military company with lots of emphasis on absolute loyalty to The Cause. More to the point, though, these opportunities to bring people together and perhaps write a new Constitution for us all to play by do not tend to be accompanied by anything even remotely approaching long-term / long-range communications processes. It's more like "hey the circus is coming to town, bring your clowns, it'll be FUN!" **visceral shudder**
  #79  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:02 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,857
I don't know my Canadian history but it seems unlikely that Trudeau would come to power by concealing his preferences for UHC. And, since it could have been subsequently abolished and hasn't, the indications are that the decision to implement UHC didn't occur in a vacuum of popular sentiment.
  #80  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:07 AM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
There are changes I'd like to see in our Constitution. But I'd rather see them enacted through amendments than through a complete re-write.

I see our current Constitution as a document that's around 90% good and 10% flawed. And I'd worry that a re-write would be more likely to mess up the good parts rather than fix the flaws.
Seconded. I think rewriting an entire document that is a benchmark for all other law is a mistake. Amending any issues is a more efficient method.

Trying to assemble a Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare to begin with, and the debates over the content of a document would de-evolve into a quagmire of partisan politics. However, "eating the elephant one bite at a time" through discussing discrete issues and drafting amendments would be a better, targeted approach to the issues any Amendment committees saw fit to remedy.

Tripler
The Constitution made amendments possible--use that tool!
  #81  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:12 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus View Post
Right before you pick up your guitar and play?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Nah, it would be over in the corner, gently weeping.
  #82  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:15 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
"No government agency will endorse, favor, or promote any religion or religious organization; in the eyes of the government religions and religious organizations shall be considered private civil organizations and treated accordingly. (This includes regarding taxation and financial disclosure.) No government agent will act in a way that endorses, favors, or promotes a religion or religious organization while acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. Religious, philosophical, and atheistic beliefs, and membership in organizations centered on such beliefs, are considered protected classifications. (See protected classifications.)"
Can a Sikh employee of the government wear a turban on the job? That's a religious symbol to Sikh men, an d so could be construed by someone as "endorsement" of a religion.

How about a small crucifix around the neck? A yarmulke?

There are always thing like that. no matter where you draw the line, I can find a case that straddles it. You will never, ever, ever be able to legislate people from being assholes. The problem in the USA with fundamentalist Christianity worming into politics cannot be Constitutioned away.

This is not going to be a popular opinion but I'll offer it away; what is WRITTEN in a Constitution is usually unimportant. Many countries have had beautifully written Constitutions that were cheerfully ignored by dictators, assholes, or the armed men who started the next coup. The precise details of the Constitution of the United States are not actually what is important; the U.S. would be the same country with the same basic strengths and weaknesses if you changed the wording of some of the clauses.

I'm Canadian, and our Constitution is really quite a mess in a lot of ways; the Senate alone is just ridiculous, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a mess of compromises, I could go on. Nonetheless, the country works quite well. It works not because of the wordsmithing of the Constitution, but because Canadians WANT it to work, and have a fundamental shared vision in the country running in a harmonious manner. Were the Constitution to be made clearer, more democratic and more elegant, it wouldn't really improve things. But no matter how well written it is, if we didn't want the country to function or could not agree on how to make it work, it would all fall apart, and all the Constitutional genius you could write would not help.

The U.S. Constitution is not the work of scintillating, perfect genius Americans think it is - at least, it's not in terms of statecraft. Its real value is as an aspirational, even inspirational, statement of values. It says in words what Americans wish their country could be, and serves a focus for Americans to agree, "we want this thing to work for all of us." The day enough Americans do not want that, the country is doomed, no matter what words are in the Constitution.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #83  
Old 07-11-2019, 10:26 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I don't know my Canadian history but it seems unlikely that Trudeau would come to power by concealing his preferences for UHC. And, since it could have been subsequently abolished and hasn't, the indications are that the decision to implement UHC didn't occur in a vacuum of popular sentiment.
No one said otherwise.
  #84  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:32 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCAdian View Post
And we should care about this ... why?
It is sometimes stated that the system of government we have is the best of all possible choices, so to recognize that pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate is a useful reality check. If someone went around bragging that raisin soda was the king of all beverages, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that they are alone in that assessment.

But back to the OP: I would have a hard time advocating for a new constitutional convention. I agree with others that it would be a mess fraught with peril. But if by some unexpected mechanism I was faced with a vote between two constitutions -- vote for the current U.S. Constitution or some new proposal -- I'd take a serious look at the new one and not just assume I'd support the current.
  #85  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It is sometimes stated that the system of government we have is the best of all possible choices, so to recognize that pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate is a useful reality check. If someone went around bragging that raisin soda was the king of all beverages, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that they are alone in that assessment.
....
Really? Other than some dictatorships, and some authoritarian Communist nations, nearly every nation is a republican/representational form of democracy.

Now sure, beyond that, most Euro nations have a parliamentary form of representational democracy rather than a Presidential democracy .

However, many nations still use our system, most nations in the Americas are Presidential democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system
Presidentialism is the dominant form of government in the continental Americas, with 19 of its 22 sovereign states being presidential republics. It is also prevalent in Central and southern West Africa and in Central Asia.

So "pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate" is pretty much totally wrong. Euro nations use parliamentary, American nations use Presidential democracy systems.

Africa uses several systems, mostly broken, and Asia uses both.
  #86  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:17 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Really? Other than some dictatorships, and some authoritarian Communist nations, nearly every nation is a republican/representational form of democracy.

Now sure, beyond that, most Euro nations have a parliamentary form of representational democracy rather than a Presidential democracy .

However, many nations still use our system, most nations in the Americas are Presidential democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system
Presidentialism is the dominant form of government in the continental Americas, with 19 of its 22 sovereign states being presidential republics. It is also prevalent in Central and southern West Africa and in Central Asia.

So "pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate" is pretty much totally wrong. Euro nations use parliamentary, American nations use Presidential democracy systems.

Africa uses several systems, mostly broken, and Asia uses both.
I'm not aware of any other country that has the features of the Constitution that are in line with:
* three separate, coequal branches of government
* a Federal government with substantial, but also sharply limited powers
* sub-Federal government with a generous degree of sovereignty
* single member constituencies under an effective two party system with fixed terms
* robust primary election system to determine general election candidates with typically popular decisionmaking

Pretty much every other country I can think of has some features of parliamentary system, multimember districts, or substantially less sovereignty afforded to its components. You know, all the stuff that makes certain Americans' heads explode with how anti-American those features are.

If you want to inform me with the names of countries that fit these criteria, I'm eager to hear.

ETA: or, to make it easier, if you can identify a country with a process as convoluted as the electoral college to choose the head of government, that would be wonderful. TIA!

Last edited by Ravenman; 07-11-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #87  
Old 07-11-2019, 05:05 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm not aware of any other country that has the features of the Constitution that are in line with:
* three separate, coequal branches of government
......

If you want to inform me with the names of countries that fit these criteria, I'm eager to hear.

ETA: or, to make it easier, if you can identify a country with a process as convoluted as the electoral college to choose the head of government, that would be wonderful. TIA!
That's just details, every nation has it's own weird details, like the Canadians with their Governor General.

Bolivia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivi...and_government The constitution, drafted in 2006–07 and approved in 2009, provides for balanced executive, legislative, judicial, and electoral powers, as well as several levels of autonomy. There are quite a few more, but that's not important. I could go down the whole list and provide examples, but I dont think that matters to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college
"Colleges" of electors play a role in elections in other countries, albeit with electors allocated in ways differing from the United States. In Germany, the members of the federal parliament together with an equal number of people elected from the state parliaments constitute the Federal Convention, that exists for the only purpose of electing the (non-executive) head of state.[6] Similarly, in India the members of the both houses of parliament together with weighted votes from the members of the state legislative assemblies constitute an electoral college that elects the head of state.[7] In Italy, the (non-executive) head of state is elected by the members of both houses of Parliament in joint session, together with delegates elected by the Regional Councils to ensure the representation of minorities.[8]

Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia,[9] Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago[10] and Vanuatu. The Seanad Éireann (Senate) in Ireland is chosen by an electoral college. Within China, both Macau[11] and Hong Kong each have an Election Committee which functions as an electoral college for selecting the Chief Executive and formerly (in the case of Hong Kong) for selecting some of the seats of the Legislative Council. In Guernsey, an electoral college called the States of Election chooses the island's jurats.[12] Georgia will have the Electoral College to elect the President of Georgia beginning in 2024.[13]


But again, this is all details. The fact is that there are two main SYSTEMS of representative democracy: the parliamentary system, popular in Europe- and the Presidential democracy system, popular in the Americas.

You said "the system of government we have is the best of all possible choices, so to recognize that pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate is a useful reality check." You were totally wrong.

The Presidential system of representative democracy is just about as popular as the parliamentary system of representative democracy.

It's true, I dont think any nation runs theirs identical to the way the USA does, but that's true of just about every sovereign nation- they all have quirks and differences.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017