You have a fascinating idea of logic.
Option A will get you killed! Except probably it won’t but still!!
Option B is harrrrd!
Therefore, Option C, “Fuck everything and whinge” must be the “logical choice.”
The hell?
Ordinary legislation, yes. If the majority of the democratically elected legislature agrees on legislation, let it be.
If you ignore the Bill of Rights, there have been 17 successful amendments to the Constitution in the past 220 years, or approximately one every 15 years. That doesn’t sound like an insurmountable bar.
There’s only been one in the last 40 years, though - and it took 202 years to ratify.
(post shortened)
The U.S. system expects the voters to remove from office those elected officials who violate the Constitution.
Only 33 such (Amendment) proposals have been adopted by Congress since 1798 and presented to the states for ratification, and of these, only 27 have been ratified.
It seems to me it’s a better system than petitioning the Crown as a subject of that Crown. Please sir, may I have a firearm to defend myself? No. You are silly enough to be a subject of the Crown and the Crown will decide what’s best for you. And don’t let us catch you taking pictures of Royalty or it’s no pudding for you.
The US Constitution was written at a time when people escaped to the US fleeing tyrannical governments that arose from absolute monarchies and state religion.
In that respect it has been effective.
However, time has moved on and constitutional change is a very cumbersome and slow process. There are new dangers and new freedoms to protect that the writers could not forsee.
Some written constitutions are very modern…but that does not mean it makes for a particularly healthy political culture.
For example South Africa.
You have repeatedly shown that you have absolutely no idea what a constitutional monarchy is. This has already been pointed out once in this thread, and elsewhere on this board, yet you keep trotting out this delusion with the kind of laughable naivety that is the sole domain of the truly uninformed.
If I wanted to get a group of 30 people to protest X, I would have to beg the City for a permit. In some States, if I had a party with other X amount of people, I would be in violation of the law. There is a clause in the Constitution that allows people to “peaceably assemble” but from what I can tell, the Courts have sided with law enforcement and the legislature by attenuating the right to assemble. Far as I am concerned, the First Amendment has already been diluted to the point of uselessness.
- Honesty
Our government has always been mostly insulated from popular participation. That’s by design and you don’t need Daniel Lazare to tell you that. (Though his book is useful for putting it in context.) The door has always been open for the powerful so obviously that can’t be the reason our government is becoming more and more dysfunctional lately. The real reason is that our political parties are finally acting as political parties and our premodern system can’t handle it.
American political parties have finally become ideological. It used to be that both parties were open to people of all political persuasions and the parties were mostly useful in dividing up the spoils. But that has changed as movement conservatism took over the Republican party and jerked it violently to the right. Now the most conservative Democrat in Congress is more liberal than the most moderate Republican. Or at least they vote as if that were true. So the space for compromise and deal making has shrunk considerably.
This increased ideological divergence is not a bad thing in and of itself. On the contrary. Since the political parties now stand for something voters have something to vote for and against and it’s not just tribalism. The problem is the political system. Political parties can’t win elections and enact the policies they campaigned on. The balkanization of authority works against the popular mandate. People complain that politicians don’t live up to their promises but given the reality of the lack of authority the politicians can’t really be blamed for the failure. So everyone is irresponsible and gets to point fingers at someone else.
There have been other periods of quiet with respect to the Constitution. We went 43 years between the 15th and 16th, and a whopping 61 between the 12th and 13th. We’ve only gone 22 since the last one, and 21 to the one before that. Perhaps the pace is slowing down but it looks like we go through periods of more rapid Constitutional change and then lulls. Maybe these days more change is being done through the courts?
Can the media outlets in England publish unauthorized pictures of the Royal family?
Were British subjects given a choice or did they have any legal remedy when the British government decided that British subjects could not be trusted with many types of firearms and those types of firearms must be confiscated?
Hmmm… it seems to me that “numbers”, big or scary or otherwise, is a way to quantify and objectify facts. Perhaps the concept of “civilized” might be subjective, but I think most rational people might agree that tens of thousands of preventable deaths and millions of bankruptcies all due to medical coverage issues that have long been resolved in all other industrialized countries is a very bad thing, whatever other adjective one wants to assign to it. And when you throw the exorbitant and skyrocketing costs of US health care into the mix, even Republicans tend to agree that reform is necessary – they just disagree on the solution.
It’s both. In a nutshell, there are two factors at work. There are absolutist interpretations of the Constitution like the Citizens United interpretation of the First Amendment that greatly empowers the ability of vested interests to tell voters what to think, and then there is the deliberately crafted difficulty of passing new legislation even when voters want it or the legislature nominally has the votes for it. Absolutely nothing was done after the Newtown shooting even though polls showed something like 90% of voters supported improved background checks, for instance, and what happened to the public option in the ACA even when Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency?
As Trinopus said, “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.” The NRA on guns and AHIP on health care policy being two prime examples.
Let’s look at this, for instance:
(Emphasis mine.)
Isn’t it amazing that fully one-third of the poor slobs who don’t even have health insurance at all think the system is working just fine? But the amazement need not end there…
IOW, a big chunk of voters don’t even know the two are the same thing, and huge percentages oppose reforms directly intended to benefit them. Other surveys have shown some of the strongest opposition to the ACA to be among the poorest and most underinsured, and fear of “death panels” to be a prevalent cause of such opposition.
No wonder the Germans are so perplexed:
Bottom line: every industrialized country in the world has implemented universal health care at least within the last generation, and in many cases for more than 50 or even 100 years. Except the USA. Where not even a public option for the ACA could be passed. And where the possibility of true universal coverage or any form of general public insurance is nowhere on the horizon. If anyone has a better explanation for this than the two factors I mentioned, go for it.
The less reputable ones do all the time. The more responsible ones conform to the press protocol requested by Buckingham Palace. Neither ones have ever been thrown into the Tower of London for publishing “unauthorized” pictures, and this obsession of yours about picture-taking has nothing to do with the functioning of a constitutional monarchy.
What a hilariously bizarre statement. Strong gun control measures have been passed in every civilized democracy in the world. Are you seriously trying to imply that this is the Queen’s doing? If citizens didn’t like it they could vote for governments that believed otherwise. A more pertinent question is why it’s apparently impossible to pass any meaningful gun control laws in the US, even when a majority overwhelmingly support such measures. If you want to talk about the perversion of democracy, there you go.
What you consistently fail to understand is that the political power of the monarchy in the constitutional monarchies of the Commonwealth is precisely zero. With the patriation of their constitutions many such countries have completely broken even the last vestige of ties to the British Parliament. But there are still great examples of the corrupting influence of the unelected aristocracy – I submit as examples their Royal Highnesses the Koch brothers, His Excellency Sheldon Adelson the Republican kingmaker, or Prince LaPierre of the NRA.
Actually, the population has a direct influence on the federal government. By direct local elections for the House, by regional (read: by state) elections the Senate, and by regional elections by proxy the President. Yes, this is a little bit insulated, but if there was enough popular will we could completely change the government.
As for your “parties have ideologies, now” that’s not true. They’ve always had platforms that bundled the various ideologies. The difference is that the local parties would elect those closest to the center of the respective platforms instead of any radical candidates. This WAS a form of insulation, which we now don’t have.
To the point of always been open for the powerful is just plain true, I admit. My point was that the balance with the public interest has waned. Robbers always steal, but if you never lock your doors, you’re likely to get robbed more often. 
If the population was more active, we’d likely have less influence from those lobbyists because the thread of being tossed out on your ear from Congress would be real.
Except that the same thing has been happening on the Democrat side. Radical environmentalism has grabbed ahold of the party and won’t let go. The reason that people are trapped in the middle any why the voting public swings back and forth between the two parties is because they are trying to find a compromise between social policy and “crazy” and also trying to find a compromise between fiscal policy and “crazy.” Americans are solidly between the two parties. For instance, on Gun Control, most Americans (including gun owners) want sensible legislation passed. Background checks, even for person-to-person sales, would be fine for most people. But look at how recent history has played out:
2000: R president and R House are elected with an even split on the Senate, which gives way to R in both houses and president for 2003-2007. We get another war. People are annoyed and the crash gives us the motivation to remove the Reds.
2007-2009:People vote Dems back into Congress because they are not happy with two wars and an economic mess. Bush’s lame duckedness and grinding against the D congress creates a slow time for laws.
2009-2011: Ds also take the presidency and are doing an okay job, but aren’t cleaning up the economy like people want, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act does nothing for most people’s financial pain. Occupy movement starts and sputters out after getting about 6 seconds of media attention, becoming the “slow news day” news. Then they passed the ACA in time for a midterm election.
2011-Present: They passed the ACA. Most Americans wanted social health care, even the righties. But this was passed without care of what the populace wanted or needed and catered to business interests. The House goes back to R over this. it stays this way because people are less and less impressed with the President, which demeans his party overall.
That’s so not true. The parties have always had platforms. The problem, now, is that they used to have “tribes.” That has been disintegrating as voters in the center identify less with the party platforms and are seeking a hedge against both platforms, which is why the elections swing back and forth between D and R. It’s not because R and Ds randomly stay home on voting days. It’s because they are losing percentage members to the swing voter block.
What are you talking about? The Rs had Congress and President from 2001 to 2007. The Dems had Congress and the President from 2009-2011. They have both had plenty of time to run the country on their platforms and they have both made the populace feel underserved.
Except that they don’t live up to their promises when they actually have all of the power. What the excuse then? Are they so afraid of a Supreme Court review in 7 years that they are paralyzed to actually pass a law?
(post shortened)
I also enjoy the fact that a newly elected English Prime Minister has to go before the Queen and ask her if he can be the PM.
Giffords can make any claim she wants to about how much overwhelming support her side has but when it comes to an actual vote, the anti-2nd, pro registration/confiscation party loses seats in most legislatures.
That’s always true, but not necessarily a useful observation. What difference does that really make if the amount of popular will required to effect change is impossibly high because (a) vested interests control the legislative process, (b) the process is designed to be resistant to change (“a feature, not a bug”, according to some), and (c) said vested interests have an unlimited and completely unrestrained ability to shape public opinion by everything from blatant propagandizing to secretly funded fake-grassroots astroturf organizations?
So you define “radical environmentalism” as acknowledging that climate science is actually a legitimate science and not a “hoax”, but being unwilling to actually enact any meaningful climate policies? How incredibly radical! :rolleyes:
Except where they don’t, right? :rolleyes:
Also,
(1) Voters are apparently single issue now, and
(2) Apparently district boundaries have no influence (hint: the Dems had over 1 million more overall votes than the Republicans in the House yet gained fewer seats).
Like the fake-grassroots organizations that claim that the global temp is rising in spite of the fact that the global temp has actually plateaued. Then these groups are shocked that the voting public doesn’t believe their predictions.
If you are aware of district boundaries, then it shouldn’t come as a shock that each district elects their own Congressman. A national vote total doesn’t/hasn’t/won’t decide the outcome of individual districts.
How is it impossibly high? Because most people instead of barely half of the people need to actually perform a lever pulling action (sorry, last couple of votes: tapping a button) to make it happen?
Yes, they do. Because of waning interest in the public sphere. If you look to fantasy land where you had 100% public participation, this wouldn’t have happened nearly as dramatically as it has in the last 30 years.
Except that it’s not “resistant to change.” Our modern day system is “resistant to efforts against lobbyists.” We sure have made crazy other changes in the last decade (Patriot Act. ACA.) or so because it benefited those lobbyists. But that, again, is only because we gave them little resistance for the better part of two generations. Taking ACA off the books won’t happen because, now that it’s there, it’s benefiting those that lobbied for it’s passage, which then benefits the people that passed it.
This is a legitimate gripe. But it’s not like this is heavily curtailed in any other countries. They may pretend to be better than the US, but interests there lobby their legislatures just as much as here. Either directly, as here, or through the populace (…as here, also, come to think of it…). Heck, most countries lobby other countries to protect their interests.
Actually, I was talking more about some of the “conservation laws” in California as that’s what I was dealing with this morning. In the future, put ridiculous words in other people’s mouths and not mine, hm? :rolleyes: