How could it possibly be the same gamble for everyone? Nonetheless, it’s a gamble I’m advocating. “It’s too risky for me” just translates into “I have too much to lose.” For me, I feel I’ve lost too much already by living in a society that allows fascists to run the country, guns to be available freely, treasonous Presidents to go unpunished, cops to murder blacks, etc. It’s not working well enough to be worth preserving.
Yeah, who says we’d just have a live-and-let-live amicable split, or that there would be somewhere to relocate to?
slicedalone is what you are saying iessentially “so let the revolution happen, anything is better than this and I’d rather die than see them rule anyway”?
What exactly are you gambling in this scenario, though? Let’s say we go ahead with your plan to tear up the Constitution, and it turns out it’s Christian Dominionists and white nationalists who write the new one. What are they coming for you for? How easy would it be for you to put your head down, shut your mouth, and just carry on with your life?
This is where we disagree. I see the Constitution as a gigantic building, whose insides has been repaired, renovated, stripped to the walls and gutted, fitted with new electric and plumbing, walls moved around, elevators installed, additions added, filled with a squad of maintenance people at work every minute. Some of the changes have been good and some not, some of the maintenance has been deferred too long, some of the employees are incompetent, and the office in charge has occasionally been put in the hands of conservatives, which let it all go to hell.
Nevertheless, the building itself is sound, eminently livable in, and good for centuries more wear. New tenants - including those who have a choice of buildings to go to - move in by the millions every year. Like all tenants in every building everywhere, they would like changes made for their personal benefits. Some will get them, some not. Very, very few would agree to tear down the building for a new and utterly unknown one that nobody on earth could describe and doesn’t exist anywhere else.
I’m fine with the minimal risk that 1) the MAGA freaks will win out and rewrite the Constitution in their favor, and that 2) if that happens, there will be no countries in the world that I could emigrate to. Each of these is unlikely, and both of them are absurdly unlikely. It seems much more likely that I’ll end up living in a country that reflects my values, whether here or elsewhere. It seems certain that under the U.S. Constitution as written, I will live and die in a country that violates my moral values and promises not to change, ever.
A building like you describe has had a lot more than 27 changes made to it over the years. Imagine a 200+ year old building that’s had five lightbulbs changed, three carpets replaced, two new sinks, five new cabinets, three new faucets, four rooms repainted, and five outlets rewired over the years; the rest is original.
Oh, and by the way, those “two new sinks” were actually them putting in a new sink, then taking it out and bringing back the old one.
And don’t forget that it was originally built by slaves.
If this metaphor gets any more tortured, Amnesty International is going to come after us.
Fundamentally, the purpose of a constitution is to establish that a country will be governed according to laws, that apply to everyone. What those laws actually are is of less importance than that they are equally applied, so people know how to live their lives in a way that doesn’t contravene the laws.
This is different from a kingdom or a dictatorship, in which the law is whatever one guy says it is, in the moment they say it.
Even if we amend a constitution from time to time, so long as regular citizens understand the process, and agree with it, then it doesn’t matter what the constitution actually says. “Revering” any one part of it, without really understanding why it’s there, isn’t all that useful. At the end of the day, holding the current population hostage to the opinions of “the founding fathers” who are centuries dead isn’t much better than having a dictator. When times change, a constitution should change with it.
Yep. The fundamental conception that the Constitution is more meaningful than the laws of the land is flawed. Few states had poll taxes in 1964; an amendment wasn’t needed - it was show to strike at the conservative assholes. Many states had given women suffrage by 1920 - the amendment was show to strike at the conservative assholes. Slavery had been abolished across the North before the Civil War; the amendments were, yes, show to strike at the conservative assholes. The 14th amendment gave black Americans citizenship. Later, when Native Americans were finally given the same nobody thought an amendment was necessary - legislation was sufficient.
Legislation is always potentially sufficient. No matter what conservative assholes say, legislation to control weaponry in private hands has been around forever and can be increased without amendments any time that the Supreme Court isn’t controlled by conservative assholes.
I repeat: the Constitution is a framework. 234 years of experience tells us that virtually anything desirable is possible inside its structure. (Also, many things not desirable.) That the Constitution has not been amended often should be a sign that amendments are mostly irrelevant, and usually done to make a point rather than change the culture. Forget about them. Concentrate on electing the right people who will appoint the right justices. BTW, that’s what the conservative assholes of today are doing in their own terms and very successfully. They understand. I hate having to say that, but this thread forces me to.
I nean the biggest constitutional impediment to electing the right people to fix problems is the undemocratic senate which literally can’t be removed under the constitution.
The current situation of a split Senate is ahistorical. It’s not unprecedented but that the even split is lasting this long is. Over any longer period this oddity will disappear. Then - as now, BTW - the distribution is back to the voters and no change to the Constitution will be needed.
And how is the lack of a Constitutional impediment working in the House?
How is the Senate undemocratic? Originally, its member were appointed by the various state legislatures. That was changed with the seventeenth amendment and the senators are now elected by the people of their state.
The idea that the USA is a loose confederation of 50 almost-not-quite sovereign nations pooling their defenses & central banking but little else is a nonsense.
The idea that each state government is equal and gets 2 seats in the senate is therefore a nonsense.
But even worse and less democratic is the idea that the public in each state votes for the senators. If the public is voting, it needs to be one person one vote on a national scale. And if in the alternative the Senate really is representing the states’ interests, not the citizens of the states’ interests, then it should have authority only over legislation that is directive upon the states’ governments, and no authority upon legislation affecting the citizens.
I’d like to see the wording of that written as a constitutional amendment.
“The number of representatives apportioned to each state in both the House and Senate shall be equal to one representative per XXXXX citizens.”
I’m not talking about the current senate deadlock - I’m talking about the fact that the Senate is fundamentally undemocratic and there is no law or constitutional amendment that could change that which would be allowed under the constitution.
This criticism makes no sense to me. The house consistently passes the bills the majority that was elected want and promised to their constituents. The impediment to any of that mattering is the Senate for the most part.
It’s undemocratic because the most and least populated states each get the same number of votes.
The House is full of terrorists trying to hold the country hostage. I don’t recall a majority running on that promise.
Of course it’s democratic. They are elected, not appointed, or inherit the seat or win their place via trial by combat.
They are not proportional, sure. But that is the fundamental negotiated concession which holds the federation together. It’s not unusual. All the countries with a federal governmental structure have this to some degree.
Is the disproportionality excessive, well probably. But it ain’t going to work at all unless there is some element of disproportion.
Americans, or at least those who care and frequent these boards get disproportionately bent out of shape about this. On one hand we have the extolled virtues a document that forms this a more perfect Union whilst simultaneously rejecting political reality that brought the union into being.
If you want to do something about it, all hale to you but you are going to need to propose something more pragmatic than “We are taking your political power off you so we can ignore you with impunity, Nah, Nah, Na, Nah, Nah.”
You do have some say right now, don’t you?