See The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy, by Daniel Lazare (his thesis is (1) it was intended to paralyze democracy and (2) that’s bad.)
Wait, your cite in rebuttal to Miller’s question is a book on Amazon that he (and the rest of us) will presumably have to buy and slog through before we get to whatever the hell your actual rebuttal is?? Seriously? We have to buy a book on Amazon, slog through it to figure out what your point is?? 
Well what? When 45,000 people die every yearfrom lack of health insurance and millions are driven to bankruptcy by medical bills it sounds pretty damn uncivilized to me.
Not directly, but indirectly…
Conversely, history has also shown that an entrenched distrust of government and deliberately crippling it can be a serious impediment to progress. After World War 2, the British embarked on an ambitious program of social reform from which the National Health Service was only one of many important outcomes. Canada, despite having an almost identical private health insurance system to that of the US until the 60s, had little difficulty creating provincial single-payer health insurance systems under the umbrella of a national health care policy. And an entire new constitution was introduced in 1982 without much fuss. The US has been struggling with health care reform for a century with relatively little to show for it.
But unparalyzed democracy is also bad. Tyranny of the majority, demagoguery, etc. Both Parliamentary and Congressional systems require a lot of talk about a proposal before it is enacted. The longer the discussion, the more moderate the final proposal.
The idea of a system where a majority could put through a proposal without entertaining amendments is…daunting.
(I just know someone is going to say, “What about the ACA?” Let’s not highjack the thread, eh?)
Yes, the Constitution was designed to inhibit progress through unilateral action. The best things to come out of the USs’ federal government system was a concert of effort among the legislative and executive branches with a balance on the USSC as a third party.
The breakdown we see, these days, is because the populace has become so disinterested and disenfranchised by the federal government that they are barely participatory, which has left the doors open for lobbyists, corporations, and people with money to get their foot in the door.
Jefferson said it best: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” And we, as a populace, have stopped being vigilant. This isn’t the fault of the constitution. It’s really the fault of the people.
Yes, that would be a bad system. It’s a good thing countries like Canada and Britain aren’t subject to the whims of a crowned head.
Not so. First, it wasn’t an entirely new Constitution, but a package of amendments added on to the 1867 Constitution.
Second, there was considerable fuss, including a series of constitutional conferences, major disagreements from 8 of the 10 provinces, negotiations with the British government, which had some reservations about passing the package, and a series of court challenges which culminated in two Supreme Court cases, the Patriation Reference and Reference re Quebec Veto.
There was also considerable discontent in Quebec at the amendments without their agreement, which contributed to a referendum on separation which the federalists won by the narrowest of margins.
Exactly so. It’s our own damn fault that advertisements are so effective. We are suckers for a slick attack ad. We’re lazy, and don’t look up the facts. And we’re too easily swayed by emotional appeals.
(Hell, the same is true for commercial advertising too! We don’t choose between Coke and Pepsi on the basis of actual flavor, but of image and appeal and publicity.)
The framers of the Constitution imagined that we would not form up into political parties. They were foolish in that fantasy. It contradicts human nature.
Representative democracy itself may violate human nature; our instincts are pretty much to follow a “big man” and do what he says. But representative democracy is the best system for making group decisions. (Or, per Churchill, the least worst!)
Americans should ditch their constitution and Mexico should ditch theirs and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be the law for all of North America.
Your points are duly noted. However you’re nitpicking over one example out of a number that I gave to illustrate the kinds of reforms that are possible when governments are empowered rather than intentionally hobbled, like Britain’s post-war transition to social democracy. As for my constitutional reform example, the “fuss” was still minimal relative to the magnitude of the legislation. A major enabling factor was Trudeau’s majority government, a potent force in a parliamentary system where there are no artificial roadblocks and the head of the executive branch isn’t going to veto anything because s/he is the same person as the head of the majority party. Interestingly, a few years later Australia and New Zealand both did much the same thing, also with a relative minimum of fuss.
You’re correct that the constitution wasn’t entirely new, but what was new and fundamental was its patriation from the UK. Plus, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was new and for most citizens is arguably the most important part of the whole thing.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Well what? When 45,000 people die every year from lack of health insurance and millions are driven to bankruptcy by medical bills it sounds pretty damn uncivilized to me.
[/QUOTE]
That’s nice. However, I don’t see that as any sort of refutation, since saying something is either civilized or uncivilized is basically just a subjective opinion…YOUR subjective opinion in this case. Backed up by the OP and your outrage. Throwing out some big, scary numbers is simply an attempt to appeal to emotion. So, where does that leave us? With your subjective opinion, similar to the OPs, on what is or isn’t civilized and, well, your appeal to emotion with your big scary numbers, which don’t really demonstrate much of anything really. I could as easily take any number of scary things that cause death or lead to bankruptcy in any nation you care to name and claim it’s uncivilized with an equal amount of weight, since it would be exactly the same…my opinion on what is or isn’t ‘civilized’.
Which is neither here nor there, since the constitution has nothing to do with why we don’t have UHC, which is the subject of the debate. Which leads us to this:
Um, are you seriously claiming that the constitution indirectly is what’s preventing the US from adoption UHC? :dubious:
So, because Canada was able to adopt a single payer system that means the constitution is what’s blocking the US from doing the same thing? Oh, and the UK did it too, so that’s, er, added proof of…something? You do realize you are stringing a bunch of things together and then attempting to connect the dots in something that would bewilder even a 9/11 Truther CTer on a roll, right?
To break it down, the constitution isn’t blocking UHC from happening in the US, directly or indirectly. There is nothing unconstitutional about UHC or a single payer system, despite what some Republicans think. What’s blocking it is that there simply isn’t a large enough portion of the voting public that supports it across the board. I know, it’s a bummer that Americans aren’t Canadians and British, but there you go…we aren’t. We are actually completely separate countries with completely separate systems of government and, well, a completely different voter base. When enough of the voting public will vote (and be willing to pay for) something like UHC or a single payer system then it will happen. Until then, it’s not the constitution blocking it from happening, it’s the voters.
Is this wholly wrong? It might be easier to blame the Senate’s rules and the institution of the Filibuster, but, if the U.S. had a more Parliamentary system, we’d have instituted a universal health system under Roosevelt (Franklin, or Theodore?)
Certainly a single-payer option would have been attached to the ACA…
The existence of the Senate, in itself as it is constituted – the “States’ House” – very solidly negates a lot of otherwise centralizing interests in U.S. politics. Without the vast power of the Senate, U.S. states would be about as powerful as English counties are today. Not bloody very!
(Whether or not this is a good thing, I ain’t prepared to argue. Sometimes, I like the protections this gives me. Other times, I’m frustrated because it prevents reforms that I would favor.)
The OP posits that the Constitution has limited what the federal government can do. That’s a feature not a bug.
Trudeau’s majority was not a truly decisive factor, for two reasons.
First, the package received general all-party support in the Commons; both the NDP under Broadbent and the PCs under Clark gave general support, while making various suggestions as to details, some of which were accepted.
Second, the true opposition came from the eight provinces which were opposed. Initially, only Ontario and New Brunswick supported the plan, and documents which have come to light under the British 30 year rule indicate that there was real unease in the British government about passing the patriation package in those circumstances.
After the Supreme Court decision in the Patriation Reference, which held that a substantial amount of provincial support was necessary, as a matter of constitutional convention, the issue became even more difficult for Trudeau. His majority in the Commons was a necessary condition to get the package passed, but that by itself was not sufficient; he had to get a substantial amount of provincial support, in order to get the political legitimacy to get the package passed. He continued to use the threat of unilateral change, coupled with a political battle in London to get Thatcher to agree to passing the package, but that was a pretty weak hand, in light of the Patriation Reference.
And, when you have the second-largest province doing everything it can to undermine the patriation package, before it passes, during the negotiations, and even after it passes, and pointing to that package as proof that Canada does not work and that Quebec’s interests will never be accomodated, it’s pretty hard to say there was a minimum of fuss, in my opinion.
I don’t think it’s possible to extrapolate too much on different political situations. To my recollection, there was no opposition from the Australian states, nor any protracted court cases. That was a difference in politics, not parliamentary structure.
There also weren’t any big changes in Australia or New Zealand. They were both just tying up some loose ends and continuing things as they were. No new amending formula, no new charter, etc.
You are correct: Gallup: In U.S., 66% Satisfied Health System Works for Them
Sounds like a hip hop album title.
And how is that working out over there?
This depends on how one defines “freedom.” For many Americans freedom means low taxes, little or nothing in the way of gun control laws, and little else.
I am not one of those Americans. Indeed, I lack reverence for the United States Constitution, and for the “Founding Fathers,” who are often quoted in order to support a policy I dislike.
I prefer the British parliamentary system. However, the United States right now is evenly divided and sharply polarized. One can almost see the fault lines building for a civil war. Until there is a broad level of agreement on the kind of government the United States should have, I prefer to keep the existing Constitution, but I would rather it not be considered to be the Absolute Truth.
Rather, that it will inevitably be violated and those who rely on their idol of paper for protection will lose their liberty, which they may not have done had they had to act for freedom.
The first of those would presumably get you killed. The second is a largely hopeless cause as the Constitution, as well as being designed to stop things getting done, is also designed to make it hard to change the Constitution. The third is much easier, certainly, and just as productive as the other two. An obvious logical choice.