why the US constitution needs to be easier to amend
37 views
Skip to first unread message
Warren D Smith
Mar 7, 2015, 2:52:07 PM3/7/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
On 3/7/15, Frank <frankdm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see a compelling reason to conclude the current
> method of amending the constitution is insufficient. Remember, there is
> always the "legal revolution" of a constitutional convention which,
> admittedly, the states are loathed to have to do for various reasons, not
> the least of which is fear of a "run away convention" which is what
> happened last time. The idea of a convention came very close to fruition
> during the debate over whether to directly elect Senators; so much so, in
> order to prevent the risk of a run away convention, the congress quickly
> passed an amendment proposal. As much as I would like to amend the
> constitution for various reasons, I'm convinced the "gauntlet" left by the
> Framers is sufficiently flexible while making sure adopted ideas have
> appeal which is both broad and deep.
--the reason it needs to be easier to amend seems obvious to me: they
don't amend it enough, and they've never had a const'l convention.
The Swiss Constitution was virtually 100% written/rewritten by means
of referenda.
Result: It is far better than the USA's.
Consider: many, many things are simply not mentioned in the constitution at all.
Such as abortion, gays, massive electronic surveillance, and "right to privacy."
So, therefore, judges have simply magically inferred statements which
do not exist
to determine all that stuff (and I could go on -- declaring war,
congressional districts,
gerrymandering, voting system reform...).
Thus vast bodies of so-called law are based on statements which do not
exist, combined
with magic.
This situation is absurd.
What is perhaps even worse is design errors in the constitution, which
are unfixable.
Now all those problems could easily be cured by constitutional amendments.
But, in fact, Roe v Wade happened in 1973. That was 42 years ago. In
those 42 years, despite essentially every politician claiming this is
way way important, there have been zero constitutional amendments to
settle this. If it is so, so, so, incredibly hard that even the
topmost important issues which are wholy governed by magical non-laws,
cannot be put into amendments to clarify the situation,then that ought
to tell you something.
It ought to tell you the constitution is too damn hard to amend. It is
over 200 years old,
it was written by people who today would be considered total idiots
who know essentially nothing, people who simply could not survive in
anything above menial jobs if magically time-transported into the
modern world -- and it cannot be updated because amending it is
essentially impossible.
This is akin to basing law on "sharia law" based on notions about the Koran.
We recently saw some laughable initiative passed to allegedly make
sure sharia law would never make it into the USA. However, what
nobody said was: basically it is already here.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
> I don't see a compelling reason to conclude the current
> method of amending the constitution is insufficient. Remember, there is
> always the "legal revolution" of a constitutional convention which,
> admittedly, the states are loathed to have to do for various reasons, not
> the least of which is fear of a "run away convention" which is what
> happened last time. The idea of a convention came very close to fruition
> during the debate over whether to directly elect Senators; so much so, in
> order to prevent the risk of a run away convention, the congress quickly
> passed an amendment proposal. As much as I would like to amend the
> constitution for various reasons, I'm convinced the "gauntlet" left by the
> Framers is sufficiently flexible while making sure adopted ideas have
> appeal which is both broad and deep.
--the reason it needs to be easier to amend seems obvious to me: they
don't amend it enough, and they've never had a const'l convention.
The Swiss Constitution was virtually 100% written/rewritten by means
of referenda.
Result: It is far better than the USA's.
Consider: many, many things are simply not mentioned in the constitution at all.
Such as abortion, gays, massive electronic surveillance, and "right to privacy."
So, therefore, judges have simply magically inferred statements which
do not exist
to determine all that stuff (and I could go on -- declaring war,
congressional districts,
gerrymandering, voting system reform...).
Thus vast bodies of so-called law are based on statements which do not
exist, combined
with magic.
This situation is absurd.
What is perhaps even worse is design errors in the constitution, which
are unfixable.
Now all those problems could easily be cured by constitutional amendments.
But, in fact, Roe v Wade happened in 1973. That was 42 years ago. In
those 42 years, despite essentially every politician claiming this is
way way important, there have been zero constitutional amendments to
settle this. If it is so, so, so, incredibly hard that even the
topmost important issues which are wholy governed by magical non-laws,
cannot be put into amendments to clarify the situation,then that ought
to tell you something.
It ought to tell you the constitution is too damn hard to amend. It is
over 200 years old,
it was written by people who today would be considered total idiots
who know essentially nothing, people who simply could not survive in
anything above menial jobs if magically time-transported into the
modern world -- and it cannot be updated because amending it is
essentially impossible.
This is akin to basing law on "sharia law" based on notions about the Koran.
We recently saw some laughable initiative passed to allegedly make
sure sharia law would never make it into the USA. However, what
nobody said was: basically it is already here.
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
Frank
Mar 7, 2015, 10:16:29 PM3/7/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
"they don't amend it enough" -- I think the current rate, once every 13 years after the Bill of Rights or once every 8 years since the start of the republic, helps provide a sense of legal stability and, consequently, provides added gravitas/solemnity to the particular protections.
"they've never had a const'l convention" -- Well, no, for good reason. In addition to the risk of a run away convention, going that far sends a bright "batsignal" to the world saying, "The American government has utterly failed. The experiment in self-government is a complete failure." So, People work to make sure that "trigger" is never pulled.
"It is far better than the USA's." -- What Swiss features would You like to see added?
"many, many things are simply not mentioned in the constitution at all." -- They generally don't need to be because such topics are often covered by the ninth and tenth amendments.
"judges have simply magically inferred statements which do not exist to determine all that stuff" -- Reading the constitution and court rulings it becomes clear no "magic" is involved. For example, the power to declare war is explicitly given to the congress in Article I, Section 8. The most relevant bits related to congressional districts and gerrymandering are covered by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. The choice of voting system, apart from 3 cases (the use of the Electoral College and amendment proposals and veto overrides) is completely unspecified, leaving the nation free to experiment.
"What is perhaps even worse is design errors in the constitution, which are unfixable." -- Such as?
"Now all those problems could easily be cured by constitutional amendments." -- Or they could be resolved typically by legislation, which would have to be easier to enact lest amendments and the constitution come to be meaningless.
"In those 42 years, despite essentially every politician claiming this is
way way important, there have been zero constitutional amendments to
settle this." -- That depends on One's perspective. To the Minds of People agreeing with Roe, the matter is settled for now. Only to Those in opposition to Roe does the matter need changing.
"If it is so, so, so, incredibly hard that even the topmost important issues which are wholy governed by magical non-laws, cannot be put into amendments to clarify the situation, then that ought to tell you something." -- the only thing it tells Me is even Someone as learned and clever as Yourself possibly has trouble accessing the relevant information the courts use.
"It is over 200 years old" -- I don't see why the age matters.
"it was written by people who today would be considered total idiots
who know essentially nothing" -- I get the impression early U.S. history is (understandably) not a topic which grabs Your interest in the tightest fashion. A deeper study, however, shows the Framers were quite familiar with the flaws of government experienced in Their time and sought to not only prevent those flaws but to also allow Themselves and Us, Their "posterity", to correct any additional flaws which surface.
"people who simply could not survive in anything above menial jobs if magically time-transported into the
modern world" -- Almost every One of the Framers worked in law/business/politics/bureaucracy. The rest were Farmers, Scientists, and a university President. All those jobs have counterparts today.
"and it cannot be updated because amending it is essentially impossible" -- That's America: doing the impossible 27 times and counting. ;-)
In re sharia, to make a long story short, People tend to misunderstand exactly what "sharia law" is: in Islam, it is "the law of G-d"; the details of that law is in dispute. So, the fact Individuals not that familiar with Islam have tried to enact such laws doesn't mean much to Me.
In re sharia, to make a long story short, People tend to misunderstand exactly what "sharia law" is: in Islam, it is "the law of G-d"; the details of that law is in dispute. So, the fact Individuals not that familiar with Islam have tried to enact such laws doesn't mean much to Me.
--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6
Warren D Smith
Mar 7, 2015, 11:18:24 PM3/7/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
On 3/7/15, Frank <frankdm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "they don't amend it enough" -- I think the current rate, once every 13
> years after the Bill of Rights or once every 8 years since the start of the
> republic, helps provide a sense of legal stability and, consequently,
> provides added gravitas/solemnity to the particular protections.
--well, probably about 500 laws that affect you change per year. Most
> years after the Bill of Rights or once every 8 years since the start of the
> republic, helps provide a sense of legal stability and, consequently,
> provides added gravitas/solemnity to the particular protections.
of which, you don't even know about.
If just 1 constit'l change per year, that you actually vote on, that
does not seem overmuch by comparison.
> "they've never had a const'l convention" -- Well, no, for good reason. In
> addition to the risk of a run away convention, going that far sends a
> bright "batsignal" to the world saying, "The American government has
> utterly failed. The experiment in self-government is a complete failure."
> So, People work to make sure that "trigger" is never pulled.
>
> "It is far better than the USA's." -- What Swiss features would You like to
> see added?
as other languages.)
There is no comparison, really.
> "many, many things are simply not mentioned in the constitution at all." --
> They generally don't need to be because such topics are often covered by
> the ninth and tenth amendments.
>
> "judges have simply magically inferred statements which do not exist to
> determine all that stuff" -- Reading the constitution and court rulings it
> becomes clear no "magic" is involved. For example, the power to declare war
> is explicitly given to the congress in Article I, Section 8.
Drastically. Enormously.
> The most
> relevant bits related to congressional districts and gerrymandering are
> covered by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. The choice of
> voting system, apart from 3 cases (the use of the Electoral College and
> amendment proposals and veto overrides) is completely unspecified, leaving
> the nation free to experiment.
>
> "What is perhaps even worse is design errors in the constitution, which are
> unfixable." -- Such as?
>
> "Now all those problems could easily be cured by constitutional
> amendments." -- Or they could be resolved typically by legislation, which
> would have to be easier to enact lest amendments and the constitution come
> to be meaningless.
each year, it becomes "meaningful." If it is "200 year old
gobbledygook written by fools, which is interpreted using voodoo and
tea leaves" THEN it is meaningless. These claims
of voodoo and tea leaves, by the way, are not just my opinion. It is
an objective fact that constitutional interpretations in different
binding supreme court decisions have altered massively, 180 degrees,
over time.
> "In those 42 years, despite essentially every politician claiming this is
> way way important, there have been zero constitutional amendments to
> settle this." -- That depends on One's perspective. To the Minds of People
> agreeing with Roe, the matter is settled for now. Only to Those in
> opposition to Roe does the matter need changing.
opposition to Roe,
such as TX closing down the vast majority of abortion clinics under
targeted "coincidental" pretexts, just like blacks could not vote
under "JIm Crow" laws for reasons "totally unrelated" to them being
black. Exact same techniques, new application.
And then everybody is afraid to sue, because the voodoo might change
in unpredictable ways.
If you have vast faith that 200-year old fools really know what is
best and nothing new is ever better than 200 year old ignorant twits
who never imagined gays might matter one whit and never comprehended
the concept of a "telephone," then fine. Join lovers of "the bible is
the only book that ever need be read." If you think continual feedback
yields better results, then join those of us who like "democracy."
Oh and by the way, they were not just "fools." They also were "a
massively biased unrepresentative subset of people." Zero women. Zero
blacks. (Probably a fair number of gays, but none who would admit it.
One of the top writers was a pedophile rapist
under today's laws.)
> "If it is so, so, so, incredibly hard that even the topmost important
> issues which are wholy governed by magical non-laws, cannot be put into
> amendments to clarify the situation, then that ought to tell you
> something." -- the only thing it tells Me is even Someone as learned and
> clever as Yourself possibly has trouble accessing the relevant information
> the courts use.
constantly unable to "access the relevant information the courts use"
despite being way more "learned" than myself -- since they rule the
opposite way to what the constitution supposedly says (5-4 decisions).
EVERY time there exists a 5-4 decision, that is because the
constitution was not clear on that issue. EVERY such situation could
be fixed. That's hundreds of desirable constitutional changes right
there, so we could work toward a constitution that is not magic
voodoo, but actually is clear law.
Because the const'n is so hard to amend, those hundreds of fixes never
happen, resulting in ever-worsening voodoo quagmire. And that's
nothing compared to ideas
like voting system reform, which would not even be on that agenda, they sort
of lie on a higher plane, above it, where nobody ever even tries to go
-- again because the constitution is so insanely hard to amend. Thus
human progress is massively held back.
> "It is over 200 years old" -- I don't see why the age matters.
now have more
information and more knowledge than they did then. Most anybody can
now find out more about most relevant topics in a few days than those
guys could in a decade.
We also have the advantage of hindsight. If put just me equipped with
modern tools & info up against the entire original constitutional
convention back then, I think the better qualified one would be me.
The advantage is that great. (And I by no means am
as experienced nor necessarily as smart as those guys were.)
> "it was written by people who today would be considered total idiots
> who know essentially nothing" -- I get the impression early U.S. history is
> (understandably) not a topic which grabs Your interest in the tightest
> fashion. A deeper study, however, shows the Framers were quite familiar
> with the flaws of government experienced in Their time and sought to not
> only prevent those flaws but to also allow Themselves and Us, Their
> "posterity", to correct any additional flaws which surface.
> "people who simply could not survive in anything above menial jobs if
> magically time-transported into the
> modern world" -- Almost every One of the Framers worked in
> law/business/politics/bureaucracy. The rest were Farmers, Scientists, and a
> university President. All those jobs have counterparts today.
"greenhouse"?
What's "nitrogen"? What's a "tractor"? "Gasoline"?) Or their
scientific understanding to accomplish anything as a scientist today.
Or their knowledge of law and business to get hired as a lawyer or run
a business today. Or bureaucracy techniques of those days to try to
do bureaucracy now. They'd all be idiots
incapable of pursuing those fields today. It isn't their fault, but
it is still the truth.
Knowledge has advanced. Everybody who lived at that time was a total idiot
by today's metrics in essentially every area of modern life. And that
includes "politics in a democracy."
> "and it cannot be updated because amending it is essentially impossible" --
> That's America: doing the impossible 27 times and counting. ;-)
forbidden to update anything except once every 8 years or so, then
you'd be a total failure. You'd be the
slowest dumbest loser ever. And yet, for some reason, you think for
the constitution this is actually beneficial. But I know it is not,
because the other extreme -- Switzerland
-- has been tried. It did not yield the end of that country. It
instead led to Switzerland's rapidly evolving constitution becoming
far superior to the USA's. Compare them just on readability and
clarity, for example. Absolutely no comparison.
Feedback works.
What we should want is the most, and most-rapid, feedback we can
possibly get for the Constitution. Now if you tried to make it too
rapid, e.g. 1 change per day, that'd presumably backfire, because
people cannot deal with that much that fast. But 1 change per year is
certainly handleable since not as rapid as Switzerland already did.
Douglas Cantrell
Mar 8, 2015, 3:26:02 AM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
I don't think ratifying amendments needs to be any easier, but the procedure we have for proposing them is pretty terrible. Potential problems with Congress are about a third of the reason we need an amendment process to begin with, but they're basically the only ones that can initiate it. At the very least the other branches should be able to propose amendments as well; the courts would probably be better with procedural issues anyway. Ideally you'd have something reasonably close to direct democracy as a fail-safe; maybe an annual convention with delegates elected by random ballot.
Rob Wilson
Mar 8, 2015, 5:14:30 AM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
The constitution is too ambiguous and has piss poor enforcement mechanisms. It isn't even clear what a convention called by the states would look like.
I think it needs to be rewritten from scratch and it should contain three documents:
1) A basic outline. This is somewhat like the format of our current constitution, but it would be in a alphanumeric outline.
2) A detailed explanation of each clause in the outline. It would give the reasoning behind the clause and a more in depth explanation.
3) A mock case scenario guide. This would provide mock trial cases that borderline on what is constitutional and what is not and explain what the proper ruling for each case.
Steve Cobb
Mar 8, 2015, 8:40:45 AM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
I love it when people compare the US--a federation of 50 states and 310M people--with a tiny, cherry-picked European nation, usually Scandinavian. I do like to hear Switzerland cited as an example, but for its decentralized structure, despite its small size. I would not want the US Constitution changing much. It is supposed to be a loose framework, with the "innovation" occurring in the 50 states, a dozen of which have populations greater than Switzerland.
Could the US Constitution be improved, with a 1.1 or 2.0? Of course, but in today's climate, with today's "experts", the result would likely be substantially worse.
Warren D Smith
Mar 8, 2015, 11:05:32 AM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
On 3/8/15, 'Steve Cobb' via The Center for Election Science
when it comes to reaching agreement. You're exactly wrong.
> I would not want the US Constitution
> changing much. It is supposed to be a loose framework, with the
> "innovation" occurring in the 50 states, a dozen of which have populations
> greater than Switzerland.
--If the innovations are incapable of actually making it into the
constitution, then that advantage is lost. For example many states
adopted citizen initiative+referendum. Obviously that should be
nationwide too. It has no chance of getting there in the
foreseeable future.
Is a "loose framework" a good thing? Of course not. In order to
live in a world of laws, one needs to know what the laws actually are.
with constantly having 5-4 supreme court decisions and constant random
supreme court self-reversals, the situation is ludricous, and
furthermore, undoubtably on many 5-4 and 6-3 decisions the US public
if polled would have preferred the unconstitutional decision that
wasn't made, indicating it should have been changed. That's problem
#1. Problem #2 is,
the constitution actually makes a lot of explicitly bad choices. For example,
it outlaws all limits on campaign financing (pretty much says
"Citizen's United")
which polls indicate the large majority of Americans regard as a huge
mistake. OK, again, there is no chance that will change in the
forseeable future -- those clowns can't even pass a law saying
disclose funding sources. We recently saw that John McCain was
constitutionally ineligible to be president, despite being the
official
nominee of the Republican party. This was simply ignored by most, but
you can read
a correct analysis here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621
Practically every war the USA enters into is unconstitutional, causing
huge numbers of deaths. Again, no chance this will be fixed in the
forseeable future.
Enormous violations of habeus corpus, search and seizure, are now commonplace,
with again no chance this will be fixed in the forseeable future. THe
USA has, I think, by far the largest incarceration rate of anyplace,
making it the "land of the unfree"
with it essentially impossible to prosecute any police officer of
prosecutor for their rampant flagrant abuses.
And what I am hearing from the likes of you is:
> Could the US Constitution be improved, with a 1.1 or 2.0? Of course, but in
> today's climate, with today's "experts", the result would likely be
> substantially worse.
--oh.
<electio...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I love it when people compare the US--a federation of 50 states and 310M
> people--with a tiny, cherry-picked European nation, usually Scandinavian. I
>
> do like to hear Switzerland cited as an example, but for its decentralized
> structure, despite its small size.
--actually, Switzerland with several languages has more problems than the USA
> I love it when people compare the US--a federation of 50 states and 310M
> people--with a tiny, cherry-picked European nation, usually Scandinavian. I
>
> do like to hear Switzerland cited as an example, but for its decentralized
> structure, despite its small size.
when it comes to reaching agreement. You're exactly wrong.
> I would not want the US Constitution
> changing much. It is supposed to be a loose framework, with the
> "innovation" occurring in the 50 states, a dozen of which have populations
> greater than Switzerland.
constitution, then that advantage is lost. For example many states
adopted citizen initiative+referendum. Obviously that should be
nationwide too. It has no chance of getting there in the
foreseeable future.
Is a "loose framework" a good thing? Of course not. In order to
live in a world of laws, one needs to know what the laws actually are.
with constantly having 5-4 supreme court decisions and constant random
supreme court self-reversals, the situation is ludricous, and
furthermore, undoubtably on many 5-4 and 6-3 decisions the US public
if polled would have preferred the unconstitutional decision that
wasn't made, indicating it should have been changed. That's problem
#1. Problem #2 is,
the constitution actually makes a lot of explicitly bad choices. For example,
it outlaws all limits on campaign financing (pretty much says
"Citizen's United")
which polls indicate the large majority of Americans regard as a huge
mistake. OK, again, there is no chance that will change in the
forseeable future -- those clowns can't even pass a law saying
disclose funding sources. We recently saw that John McCain was
constitutionally ineligible to be president, despite being the
official
nominee of the Republican party. This was simply ignored by most, but
you can read
a correct analysis here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621
Practically every war the USA enters into is unconstitutional, causing
huge numbers of deaths. Again, no chance this will be fixed in the
forseeable future.
Enormous violations of habeus corpus, search and seizure, are now commonplace,
with again no chance this will be fixed in the forseeable future. THe
USA has, I think, by far the largest incarceration rate of anyplace,
making it the "land of the unfree"
with it essentially impossible to prosecute any police officer of
prosecutor for their rampant flagrant abuses.
And what I am hearing from the likes of you is:
> Could the US Constitution be improved, with a 1.1 or 2.0? Of course, but in
> today's climate, with today's "experts", the result would likely be
> substantially worse.
Warren D Smith
Mar 8, 2015, 11:29:50 AM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
Just to make a concrete suggestion.
WARREN'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AMENDMENT:
The following procedure for proposing const'l amendments shall
supplant the old one.
1. Any statement that would have passed as a "law" (e.g. congressional
majorities in both houses, presidential sign off) automatically is
qualified to be a "const'l amendment"
if branded as such.
2. Among those qualifiers, the one topmost, judged by score voting
within congress, shall
be presented to the states for possible ratification, 1 new one every
6 months (unless
there are zero qualifiers during that 6 month period).
3. Each election day, available proposed amendments will be voted on
via a nationwide referendum, and any that is passed by both (a) a
majority of the popular vote and (b)
also in a majority of the states, shall be enacted.
4. In addition to the method in (1) and (2), it also shall be possible
to create short constitutional amendments without the involvement of
congress, via "citizen initiative."
Any statement less than 8000 characters long which obtains a number of
petition signatures (the signers are allowed to sign it
electronically, signatures expire after 1 year) exceeding T, also
shall be submitted for ratification. Here the threshold T is
initially 1000000, but if a year elapses with more than 5 petitions
passing threshold, then T doubles, and if a year elapses with zero
petitions passing threshold, T halves.
Who'd support this amendment?
WARREN'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AMENDMENT:
The following procedure for proposing const'l amendments shall
supplant the old one.
1. Any statement that would have passed as a "law" (e.g. congressional
majorities in both houses, presidential sign off) automatically is
qualified to be a "const'l amendment"
if branded as such.
2. Among those qualifiers, the one topmost, judged by score voting
within congress, shall
be presented to the states for possible ratification, 1 new one every
6 months (unless
there are zero qualifiers during that 6 month period).
3. Each election day, available proposed amendments will be voted on
via a nationwide referendum, and any that is passed by both (a) a
majority of the popular vote and (b)
also in a majority of the states, shall be enacted.
4. In addition to the method in (1) and (2), it also shall be possible
to create short constitutional amendments without the involvement of
congress, via "citizen initiative."
Any statement less than 8000 characters long which obtains a number of
petition signatures (the signers are allowed to sign it
electronically, signatures expire after 1 year) exceeding T, also
shall be submitted for ratification. Here the threshold T is
initially 1000000, but if a year elapses with more than 5 petitions
passing threshold, then T doubles, and if a year elapses with zero
petitions passing threshold, T halves.
Who'd support this amendment?
Warren D Smith
Mar 8, 2015, 11:40:40 AM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
(And feel free to improve WCAA; the first draft undoubtably sucks and is merely
there to start the ball rolling and provide some semblance of
something concrete
to consider.)
there to start the ball rolling and provide some semblance of
something concrete
to consider.)
Warren D Smith
Mar 8, 2015, 12:28:46 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
During my lifetime, there have been 4 US constitutional amendments,
but only 2 after I
was a small child. Of those 2, both were rather stupid and of
essentially no importance.
The super-majority requirement tends to cause any amendment that
actually matters, to fail to exist; but very unimportant, but
unobjectionable, ones do get to exist.
Here's the last 10:
18: prohibit alcohol. My verdict: failure.
19: voting for both sexes. Good. But seriously, did this need to
take 130 years?
20: dates of office. Who gives a damn? Small deal.
21: alcohol legal again 14 years later. I'm actually astounded they
managed to do both this and #18.
22: limits terms of office for presidents. I'm unsure this was a good idea.
The only president who ever exceeded it, was acclaimed as a great one and
generally won large victories. He died in office, which was bad, but
so did plenty of others. Suspect more important/clear might be: such a
limit for congress.
23: DC gets electoral votes for president (still screwed in congress).
Small deal.
24: no poll tax. Good, but just reinstated via voter ID laws and purge lists.
The actual solution to the actual problem is universal suffrage. See also #26.
25: succession for presidency. Good, but seriously, did this need to
take 190 years?
26: can vote if you're over 18. Unless you can't, because a state
declares you cannot
vote for any reason at all aside from your age. Silly minor deal,
staying wholy away from what actually matters way more.
27: congressional salary complete irrelevant bullshit.
And yes folks... That's the total amount of progress the US
constitution made in a whole century.
but only 2 after I
was a small child. Of those 2, both were rather stupid and of
essentially no importance.
The super-majority requirement tends to cause any amendment that
actually matters, to fail to exist; but very unimportant, but
unobjectionable, ones do get to exist.
Here's the last 10:
18: prohibit alcohol. My verdict: failure.
19: voting for both sexes. Good. But seriously, did this need to
take 130 years?
20: dates of office. Who gives a damn? Small deal.
21: alcohol legal again 14 years later. I'm actually astounded they
managed to do both this and #18.
22: limits terms of office for presidents. I'm unsure this was a good idea.
The only president who ever exceeded it, was acclaimed as a great one and
generally won large victories. He died in office, which was bad, but
so did plenty of others. Suspect more important/clear might be: such a
limit for congress.
23: DC gets electoral votes for president (still screwed in congress).
Small deal.
24: no poll tax. Good, but just reinstated via voter ID laws and purge lists.
The actual solution to the actual problem is universal suffrage. See also #26.
25: succession for presidency. Good, but seriously, did this need to
take 190 years?
26: can vote if you're over 18. Unless you can't, because a state
declares you cannot
vote for any reason at all aside from your age. Silly minor deal,
staying wholy away from what actually matters way more.
27: congressional salary complete irrelevant bullshit.
And yes folks... That's the total amount of progress the US
constitution made in a whole century.
Warren D Smith
Mar 8, 2015, 1:29:57 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
#23 would have been better if DC were regarded for purposes of
congress & senator elections as part of Maryland. (That matters,
therefore blocked with no hope of happening. As written, #23 has
never mattered, but perhaps might about once per 400 years.)
#24+26 better+simpler if simply have universal suffrage -- no ifs,
ands, or buts.
That would solve the problem, therefore no hope of happening.
#20 better if allow congress to reset the dates within reasonable
limits using a supermajority. Should not require huge amendment
process for this minor technical change.
#13: Probably slavery would never have been banned by const'l
amendment (because the amendment process is so incredibly bad) except
for very extreme circumstances: civil war, removal of large set of
states, and even then considerable corrupt manipulation needed to pass
it by tiny margin. And it could well be argued the original intent
of the Founders was pro-slavery, and therefore congress had no power
to ban it, and therefore it would never have been got rid of and we'd
still have it today. Obvious lesson of that: the constitutional
amendment process is simply inadequate as it stands.
#15: enacted then totally ignored during 50 year span. Proving
violations of the constitution on a massive scale do not matter and
are prevented from being repaired
by a massively bad/corrupt system -- which means a constitutional
amendment to fix that is needed, which fact is blissfully ignored.
#16: stupid idea. There are better kinds of taxes than income taxes.
The idiots fossilized a bad method into law, leaving better methods
blocked forever.
Plus anyhow Lincoln had already enacted a tax, despite this being "forbidden."
But I suppose the language can be regarded as flexible enough that
other kinds of taxes effectively permitted, so my criticism moot.
#1-10: Basically should not be counted as amendments -- only amendments after
these should be counted, for purpose of reckoning how hard it is to pass them.
Also some of these ridiculously vaguely worded. e.g what is a
"speedy" trial exactly?
Why am I forbidden the right to a jury trial in NY state traffic cases?
Why is wholesale wiretapping of every email considered OK under #4?
Why doesn't #2 permit everybody to own a nuke?
Why is debtor's prison OK in Ferguson?
congress & senator elections as part of Maryland. (That matters,
therefore blocked with no hope of happening. As written, #23 has
never mattered, but perhaps might about once per 400 years.)
#24+26 better+simpler if simply have universal suffrage -- no ifs,
ands, or buts.
That would solve the problem, therefore no hope of happening.
#20 better if allow congress to reset the dates within reasonable
limits using a supermajority. Should not require huge amendment
process for this minor technical change.
#13: Probably slavery would never have been banned by const'l
amendment (because the amendment process is so incredibly bad) except
for very extreme circumstances: civil war, removal of large set of
states, and even then considerable corrupt manipulation needed to pass
it by tiny margin. And it could well be argued the original intent
of the Founders was pro-slavery, and therefore congress had no power
to ban it, and therefore it would never have been got rid of and we'd
still have it today. Obvious lesson of that: the constitutional
amendment process is simply inadequate as it stands.
#15: enacted then totally ignored during 50 year span. Proving
violations of the constitution on a massive scale do not matter and
are prevented from being repaired
by a massively bad/corrupt system -- which means a constitutional
amendment to fix that is needed, which fact is blissfully ignored.
#16: stupid idea. There are better kinds of taxes than income taxes.
The idiots fossilized a bad method into law, leaving better methods
blocked forever.
Plus anyhow Lincoln had already enacted a tax, despite this being "forbidden."
But I suppose the language can be regarded as flexible enough that
other kinds of taxes effectively permitted, so my criticism moot.
#1-10: Basically should not be counted as amendments -- only amendments after
these should be counted, for purpose of reckoning how hard it is to pass them.
Also some of these ridiculously vaguely worded. e.g what is a
"speedy" trial exactly?
Why am I forbidden the right to a jury trial in NY state traffic cases?
Why is wholesale wiretapping of every email considered OK under #4?
Why doesn't #2 permit everybody to own a nuke?
Why is debtor's prison OK in Ferguson?
Frank
Mar 8, 2015, 2:08:56 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
"well, probably about 500 laws that affect you change per year." -- And it is very reassuring to know those laws will remain within certain parameters prescribed by the constitution. Making the constitution easier to amend reduces the likelihood of those parameters remaining sufficiently stable as to provide the same degree of assurance.
"Most of which, you don't even know about." -- I do because I'm a Citizen actually giving a damn about what goes on in My country. If Others are not, that is not the fault of the American system of government.
"well, just read the two. (Swiss one is available in English as well as other languages.) There is no comparison, really." -- That's not an answer to My question: what features from the Swiss constitution do YOU, Warren D. Smith, want to see imported into the U.S. constitution?
"except for the fact US war reality differs from your fantasy. Drastically. Enormously." -- Prove it. At the very least, show 3 specific cases where the U.S. Supreme Court has used "magic".
In re meaninglessness: if a framework is too unstable, it is no framework at all and the protections it seeks to provide have no effect.
"These claims of voodoo and tea leaves, by the way, are not just my opinion." -- Whether or not they are "just [Your] opinion" or not, You have offered them up as if they were Yours; therefore, the burden to demonstrate the veracity of the claim falls upon You.
"It is an objective fact that constitutional interpretations in different binding supreme court decisions have altered massively, 180 degrees, over time." -- Because sometimes the court gets things wrong and realizes later, "Just because We were unconsciously wrong then does not mean We must be deliberately wrong today."
In re clinics and "Jim Crow": such laws attempt to test the legal contours present in the current system. As far as "everyone is afraid to sue", the fact such laws have been and continue to be challenged disproves that notion.
"If you have vast faith that 200-year old fools really know what is best and nothing new is ever better than 200 year old ignorant twits who never imagined gays might matter one whit and never comprehended the concept of a 'telephone,' then fine." -- Now You are putting words in My mouth; that is unacceptable behavior. I never said "nothing new is ever better". I simply said I see no compelling reason for the amendment process to be easier.
"Join lovers of 'the bible is the only book that ever need be read.' If you think continual feedback yields better results, then join those of us who like 'democracy.'" -- I would appreciate if You not come across as Someone thinking it is acceptable nor even helpful to try to insult People just because, in an unrelated topic, They hold a different view than You. I never said feedback did not yield better results. I simply said I see no compelling reason for the amendment process to be easier and then proceeded to show why I think Your perception of the issue has some premise flaws.
In re "they were not just 'fools'": this has absolutely no bearing on whether the actual document produced works. After 225 years, We seem to be making a good show of it.
"since they rule the opposite way to what the constitution supposedly says (5-4 decisions)" -- Again, name 3 cases where the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in "the opposite way to what the constitution supposedly says".
"EVERY time there exists a 5-4 decision, that is because the constitution was not clear on that issue." -- Really? Every time? Even those cases where there is no constitutional issue decided and/or at stake, such as the recent Hobby Lobby, Walmart, AT&T, Janus Capital, and Iqbal cases?
"EVERY such situation could be fixed. That's hundreds of desirable constitutional changes right there, so we could work toward a constitution that is not magic voodoo, but actually is clear law." -- Yes, each of the cases I just mentioned could be fixed by simple changes to law and do not require a constitutional amendment to alter.
"Because the const'n is so hard to amend, those hundreds of fixes never happen, resulting in ever-worsening voodoo quagmire." -- No, those fixes don't happen because (1) as demonstrated, not every 5-4 case before the Supreme Court is one involving a constitutional provision and (2) sometimes the simplest/quickest/easiest/mostEffective solution is modification of a statute.
"And that's nothing compared to ideas like voting system reform, which would not even be on that agenda, they sort of lie on a higher plane, above it, where nobody ever even tries to go -- again because the constitution is so insanely hard to amend." -- As noted, except in 3 specific cases, the nation is completely free to experiment. If You were to take a poll of 100 randomly selected Americans, My hunch is voting reform would not appear in the top 5 priorities of more than, say, 5 of the 100 and in the top 3 priorities of maybe 2 of Them. Perhaps such a low priority ranking is why voting reform does not gain much traction in politics?
"Thus human progress is massively held back." -- Since You haven't proven Your premises/logic to be correct, I don't see this as an obvious conclusion. You might be correct but You haven't proven it and unless You can prove it to Me and Everyone Else in this group, I would be skeptical You're going to convince enough People outside of the group to make a difference.
"It matters because (1) the world changed in 200 years, and (2) we now have more information and more knowledge than they did then. Most anybody can now find out more about most relevant topics in a few days than those guys could in a decade." -- And if We take Your hypothetical of transporting the Framers to today, They could do the same as "[m]ost anybody".
"We also have the advantage of hindsight. If put just me equipped with modern tools & info up against the entire original constitutional convention back then, I think the better qualified one would be me." -- While People often see Themselves as the "King/Queen" of some topic, that perception does not make it true nor does it mean the outcome would have been significantly different today, even with the aid of hindsight.
"But they were working in a state of massive ignorance." -- Not in a state of "massive ignorance" of the failures of government They wanted to avoid. Remember, a sizable fraction of Them were Signatories of the Declaration of Independence which detailed a long list of flaws with the government from which They were separating and, as noted, the overwhelming majority of Them had direct experience with law and/or public office and would, therefore, be in a position to prevent and/or diminish the effects of flaws They had experienced before.
In re "try using their farming techniques today": Let's suppose We transplant You even just 50 years after today and tell You, "There is no way back; You are stuck here in this new time." Would You be lost? Only at first. Your social survival instincts would then kick in and You would endeavor to make Yourself as constructive a Member of society as You could because that is what Humans tend to, though not always, do. Since English in 200 years has not changed so drastically as to be incomprehensibly different, a similar pattern would emerge with the Framers. Yet, even if that pattern did not emerge, it has no bearing on whether the document produced provides a system which is sound and workable. The Framers did leave an escape hatch to correct systemic flaws in the form of amendments. Meanwhile, You have still presented no sound arguments to conclude that escape hatch must be changed. Your primary argument seems to be "amendments are not adopted often enough" which has no bearing on whether amendments which are actually necessary are somehow prevented by the current system from coming about.
If I remember correctly, Your background is not in law but mathematics, yes? Does this mean I should automatically dismiss what You have to say about constitutional law simply because, to use Your words, You would "be [an] idiot[] incapable of pursuing [that] field[] today"? Of course not; a good idea is a good idea no matter Who puts it forth.
"And that includes 'politics in a democracy.'" -- I never said anything about "politics in a democracy" and I wouldn't because America is a republic instead.
"this is absurd." -- You were the One saying amending the constitution is "impossible"; not Me. Just because Someone does something You call "impossible" does not mean You get to call it or the recognition of that "impossible" thing "absurd"; at least, not if You want People to take You seriously.
"In essentially every other area of life, if you were forbidden to update anything except once every 8 years or so, then you'd be a total failure. You'd be the slowest dumbest loser ever." -- Again, You are putting words in My mouth and I would really appreciate if You did not do so. I never said anything about being "forbidden" from updating the constitution. Americans have only found sufficient reason to amend the constitution once every 8-13 years, depending upon the benchmark One wants to use.
"And yet, for some reason, you think for the constitution this is actually beneficial." -- In order to bring stability to the framework in which We govern Ourselves, yes, I do.
"But I know it is not, because the other extreme -- Switzerland -- has been tried. It did not yield the end of that country." -- Again, focus on what I actually said. I said the American model gives People a sense of stability of framework in which government actions are confined. To turn Your argument around, the American model has not brought about the end of America either, suggesting it is an adequate one.
"It instead led to Switzerland's rapidly evolving constitution becoming far superior to the USA's. Compare them just on readability and clarity, for example. Absolutely no comparison." -- Readability and clarity are not the end all be all for assessing if a constitution is good. We could have a constitution which says, "The law is whatever <insert name of Warren D. Smith's least favorite Politician here> says it is." While that constitution would be readable and clear, I'll take a guess and say You would not find it to be a good one.
"Feedback works." -- Again, I never said otherwise.
"What we should want is the most, and most-rapid, feedback we can possibly get for the Constitution." -- Or We could simply ... I don't know ... pass laws? You want a right to higher education at Taxpayer expense? Convince enough of the Voters to elect Candidates supporting the idea. You want a right to smoke marijuana? Convince enough of the Voters to elect Candidates supporting the idea. You want Animals to have a right to be free from torture and murder? Convince enough of the Voters to elect Candidates supporting the idea. Not every problem requires an amendment to solve.
"people cannot deal with that much that fast" -- So, then You agree with My original, even if unspoken, premise of "People like stability in the law". Good, what We seem to disagree on then is how to bring about meaningful change at an optimal rate. So far, the current model of change (a limited federal government with several dozen "political laboratories", each given a sizable degree of say over their respective internal matters, altering such a relationship only to the extent demonstrated widely to be both necessary and constructive) seems to work pretty well. I get the impression the only tweak to this model You want to make is the requirements for altering that relationship, no?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Frank
Mar 8, 2015, 2:09:52 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
"Who'd support this amendment?" -- Not Me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Frank
Mar 8, 2015, 2:40:01 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
"18: prohibit alcohol. My verdict: failure." -- Which is why We have the 21st amendment.
"19: voting for both sexes. Good. But seriously, did this need to take 130 years?" -- No because states were always free to extend the franchise to Women. Nothing prevented the states from allowing Women to vote with the possible exception of feedback from Voters.
"20: dates of office. Who gives a damn? Small deal." -- It makes a big deal if You want to peaceful transitions of authority.
"21: alcohol legal again 14 years later. I'm actually astounded they managed to do both this and #18." -- It showed Americans did what They needed to do in regards to alcohol prohibition: learn to be more reasonable in Their approach.
"22: limits terms of office for presidents." -- I agree this amendment is a bad idea but possibly for different reasons. (1) A review of the data shows, and I'd have to dig up the study doing so, countries with term limits tend to go to war more often than those without them, which makes sense because (2) term limits for any office give Incumbents in Their last term of office less reason to keep the Voters happy while a lack of term limits means, in order to keep Their jobs, elected Officials must keep a sufficient number of Voters satisfied to a sufficient degree; (3) term limits result in amplifying Lobbyists role in the institutional memory of government. If You think "special interests" are a problem now, just wait until term limits for congress come around; then Your voice will be even more drowned out.
"23: DC gets electoral votes for president (still screwed in congress). Small deal." -- To the People in D.C., this is no "small deal" and I think it is safe to say dismissing Their ability to influence the outcome of an election for President as a "small deal", especially when They do not have a voting Member of the congress, is quite insulting.
"24: no poll tax. Good, but just reinstated via voter ID laws and purge lists." -- I don't see the effects being the same ... yet. I agree they could be; I just don't have any sizable amount of evidence of it yet; only anecdotal accounts.
"25: succession for presidency. Good, but seriously, did this need to take 190 years?" -- Yes, because the particular situation had not arisen and Americans wanted to make sure there was less systemic risk.
"27: congressional salary complete irrelevant bullshit." -- Yeah, no, I remember the controversy over the congress voting itself a pay increase multiple times while the economy was often in a bad state. Voters wanted to make sure any increase was given only to the next elected congress in order to provide some semblance of Voter accountability. Not irrelevant and not "bullshit".
"And yes folks... That's the total amount of progress the US constitution made in a whole century." -- No, that is the total amount of constitutional changes made in the last 100 years. Change is not always progress nor does progress require constitutional amendments.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Frank
Mar 8, 2015, 3:34:03 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
#23: While on the surface, I agree, an amendment would not be necessary for this; the congress could take D.C., "carve out" a "federal triangle" in the form of the area bounded by the capitol building, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and divide the remaining land equally between traditionally "blue" Maryland and upUntilRecently "red" Virginia.
"That would solve the problem, therefore no hope of happening." -- While obviously not dispositive, remember "cynicism" appears in the OED closer to "cyanide" than it does to "constructive".
#20: While possibly true if starting from scratch, there is the risk one party could obtain enough seats to extend its term indefinitely. By requiring the amendment process, instead, it forces Americans to have some sort of actual dialog about the change.
#13: You have proof of "corrupt manipulation"?
"And it could well be argued the original intent of the Founders was pro-slavery, and therefore congress had no power to ban it, and therefore it would never have been got rid of and we'd still have it today." -- Not even close. Cf., Richard Beeman's Plain Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. To summarize, consider Article I, Section 9, Clause 1: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Congress would have been well within its authority to tax slavery out of existence and, even without this clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 ("The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce...among the several States...."), gives the congress sufficient authority to ban slavery as an act significantly influence interstate commerce.
"Obvious lesson of that: the constitutional amendment process is simply inadequate as it stands." -- Nope, try again.
#15: Perhaps it has more to do with the possibility the People with standing to challenge those violations simply not doing so? Perhaps Their legal representation didn't make a compelling case? Do You have an example of a case where a state explicitly banned Blacks from voting and the courts ruled in favor of the state and the Lawyers for the Blacks so disenfranchised took Their case all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court then found in favor of the state? I've tried to find such a case but have not been able to locate one.
"The idiots fossilized a bad method into law, leaving better methods blocked forever" and the notion the income tax was "forbidden" before the adoption of this amendment -- No, the 16th amendment does not mean the congress must only raise revenue in the form of income taxes. It didn't even give the congress a new taxing power as such because the congress was always able to tax incomes; it only had to make sure the revenue raised was in proportion to each state's population. The only thing the 16th amendment did was to remove that proportionality requirement. Cf., Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); and Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
#1-10: Isn't it reasonable to expect a workable system of government to have a flurry of amendments in the early times, only to diminish in frequency over time as the system is improved?
"what is a "speedy" trial exactly?" -- See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
"Why am I forbidden the right to a jury trial in NY state traffic cases?" -- You are not, per se, forbidden such. The only constitutional guarantee for a jury trial is in the case of criminal trial and lawsuits where the amount in question is more than $20. Traffic offenses are almost all classified as civil violations due to the fact they are generally enforced with a fine.
"Why is wholesale wiretapping of every email considered OK under #4?" -- It has not been establish "wiretapping of every email" is permissible. To the contrary, the principles established in Katz v. United States say otherwise.
"Why doesn't #2 permit everybody to own a nuke?" -- Because, as stated in Heller v. D.C., "the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home." Who keeps a nuclear bomb in Their home for protection?
"Why is debtor's prison OK in Ferguson?" -- It's not. Cf., Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Warren D Smith
Mar 8, 2015, 5:10:45 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
On 3/8/15, Frank <frankdm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "well, probably about 500 laws that affect you change per year." -- And it
> is very reassuring to know those laws will remain within certain parameters
> prescribed by the constitution. Making the constitution easier to amend
> reduces the likelihood of those parameters remaining sufficiently stable as
> to provide the same degree of assurance.
>
> "Most of which, you don't even know about." -- I do because I'm a Citizen
> actually giving a damn about what goes on in My country. If Others are not,
> that is not the fault of the American system of government.
--You do know about all 500 of those laws because you give a damn? Well great.
> "well, probably about 500 laws that affect you change per year." -- And it
> is very reassuring to know those laws will remain within certain parameters
> prescribed by the constitution. Making the constitution easier to amend
> reduces the likelihood of those parameters remaining sufficiently stable as
> to provide the same degree of assurance.
>
> "Most of which, you don't even know about." -- I do because I'm a Citizen
> actually giving a damn about what goes on in My country. If Others are not,
> that is not the fault of the American system of government.
Except I think you are lying and have not actually read them all.
Because you do not
have that much time in your life. Actually, I doubt there exists any
human who has read them all.
> "well, just read the two. (Swiss one is available in English as well as
> other languages.) There is no comparison, really." -- That's not an answer
> to My question: what features from the Swiss constitution do YOU, Warren D.
> Smith, want to see imported into the U.S. constitution?
> "except for the fact US war reality differs from your fantasy. Drastically.
> Enormously." -- Prove it. At the very least, show 3 specific cases where
> the U.S. Supreme Court has used "magic".
> In re meaninglessness: if a framework is too unstable, it is no framework
> at all and the protections it seeks to provide have no effect.
affecting you!
Surely in comparison 1 const'l amendment per year is nothing? I
mean, the instability
here is not exactly huge by comparison. And I continue to point out
that Switzerland has not exactly collapsed from massive instability.
> "These claims of voodoo and tea leaves, by the way, are not just my
> opinion." -- Whether or not they are "just [Your] opinion" or not, You have
> offered them up as if they were Yours; therefore, the burden to demonstrate
> the veracity of the claim falls upon You.
>
> "It is an objective fact that constitutional interpretations in different
> binding supreme court decisions have altered massively, 180 degrees, over
> time." -- Because sometimes the court gets things wrong and realizes later,
> "Just because We were unconsciously wrong then does not mean We must be
> deliberately wrong today."
I mean, you think they were unconscious at the time? Now suppose they
reverse themselves another time to make a 360. What will you say
then?
> In re clinics and "Jim Crow": such laws attempt to test the legal contours
> present in the current system. As far as "everyone is afraid to sue", the
> fact such laws have been and continue to be challenged disproves that
> notion.
been allowed to get to square 1 in the courts, always being dismissed
without allowing to proceed to trial.
For a 50+ year span, Jim Crow was in effect. What great "challenges"
were offered to it in the courts during that time? And you know, most
people only lived for 50 years
as an adult. So for their entire life, they were massively denied
their rights. Now maybe this is just fine. Or, contrariwise, maybe
one thinks that substantial progress on massive rights violations,
ought to happen actually during one's life. You know, for those
incredibly impatient people that actually want a life during their
life. They must be really odd, huh?
But if we magnanimously grant, that huge obvious problems ought to
get fixed during a small fraction of a lifetime, then we are forced
to admit, that the present const'l amendment and court challenge
system, is broken, because they plainly don't do so..
If, like you, we think that 1 lifetime is but a mere drop in the ocean
of time, of no importance, and are perfectly happy living our entire
lives in a state of massive oppression because lifetimes are nothing,
why then fine, the constitution is just fine as is, no need for any
speedup.
> "If you have vast faith that 200-year old fools really know what is best
> and nothing new is ever better than 200 year old ignorant twits who never
> imagined gays might matter one whit and never comprehended the concept of a
> 'telephone,' then fine." -- Now You are putting words in My mouth; that is
> unacceptable behavior. I never said "nothing new is ever better". I simply
> said I see no compelling reason for the amendment process to be easier.
> "Join lovers of 'the bible is the only book that ever need be read.' If you
> think continual feedback yields better results, then join those of us who
> like 'democracy.'" -- I would appreciate if You not come across as Someone
> thinking it is acceptable nor even helpful to try to insult People just
> because, in an unrelated topic, They hold a different view than You. I
> never said feedback did not yield better results. I simply said I see no
> compelling reason for the amendment process to be easier and then proceeded
> to show why I think Your perception of the issue has some premise flaws.
>
> In re "they were not just 'fools'": this has absolutely no bearing on
> be making a good show of it.
--no, we're NOT "making a good show of it." I count about 70 years
of slavery, then about 5 years civil war. Good show? No, bad show.
Then about 60 years of Jim Crow. Good show? No: bad show. Women not
even allowed to vote for about 130 years.
98% of elections right now are rigged by gerrymandering to be
predictable, leaving us with about 4% democracy. The chair of the
committee on science & technology is vaccine denier. The chair of
ditto environment is a climate change denier.
"Pretty good show?"
No, this is a "ludicrously bad" show. And not only that, right now,
the world population exceeds sustainable levels, making a massive
population crash inevitable, and
about the same time frame, the entire economy which is dependent on
fossil fuels, will
self destruct. Guess how much attention our leaders are paying to
that? That's going
to be a disaster on a greater scale than ever before, and you figure
some 200 year old
fools who'd never even conceived of oil possibly mattering, had it all
figured out,
so don't worry.
It isn't adequate.
> "since they rule the opposite way to what the constitution supposedly says
> (5-4 decisions)" -- Again, name 3 cases where the U.S. Supreme Court has
> ruled in "the opposite way to what the constitution supposedly says".
I could name 100 cases of that.
> "EVERY time there exists a 5-4 decision, that is because the constitution
> was not clear on that issue." -- Really? Every time? Even those cases where
> there is no constitutional issue decided and/or at stake, such as the
> recent Hobby Lobby, Walmart, AT&T, Janus Capital, and Iqbal cases?
this for such cases.
But since I know you are wrong about no const'l issue at stake in
Hobby Lobby -- read Ginsburg's dissent -- I'm afraid your statements
carry no force of confidence. In the other 4 cases I'm afraid I do
not even know what you are talking about.
> "EVERY such situation could be fixed. That's hundreds of desirable
> constitutional changes right there, so we could work toward a constitution
> that is not magic voodoo, but actually is clear law." -- Yes, each of the
> require a constitutional amendment to alter.
>
> "Because the const'n is so hard to amend, those hundreds of fixes never
> happen, resulting in ever-worsening voodoo quagmire." -- No, those fixes
> don't happen because (1) as demonstrated, not every 5-4 case before the
> Supreme Court is one involving a constitutional provision and (2) sometimes
> the simplest/quickest/easiest/mostEffective solution is modification of a
> statute.
> "And that's nothing compared to ideas like voting system reform, which
> would not even be on that agenda, they sort of lie on a higher plane, above
> it, where nobody ever even tries to go -- again because the constitution is
> so insanely hard to amend." -- As noted, except in 3 specific cases, the
> nation is completely free to experiment. If You were to take a poll of 100
> randomly selected Americans, My hunch is voting reform would not appear in
> the top 5 priorities of more than, say, 5 of the 100 and in the top 3
> priorities of maybe 2 of Them. Perhaps such a low priority ranking is why
> voting reform does not gain much traction in politics?
--not so. The most important issues sometimes have no traction in
>
> "Because the const'n is so hard to amend, those hundreds of fixes never
> happen, resulting in ever-worsening voodoo quagmire." -- No, those fixes
> don't happen because (1) as demonstrated, not every 5-4 case before the
> Supreme Court is one involving a constitutional provision and (2) sometimes
> the simplest/quickest/easiest/mostEffective solution is modification of a
> statute.
> "And that's nothing compared to ideas like voting system reform, which
> would not even be on that agenda, they sort of lie on a higher plane, above
> it, where nobody ever even tries to go -- again because the constitution is
> so insanely hard to amend." -- As noted, except in 3 specific cases, the
> nation is completely free to experiment. If You were to take a poll of 100
> randomly selected Americans, My hunch is voting reform would not appear in
> the top 5 priorities of more than, say, 5 of the 100 and in the top 3
> priorities of maybe 2 of Them. Perhaps such a low priority ranking is why
> voting reform does not gain much traction in politics?
politics because
of... the voting system causing 2 party domination and entire classes
of ideas off the table. What the US public considers important --
and what actually is important, such as clearly-upcoming huge human
population crash -- has little to do with what the politicians
consider important. Try reading polls if you need edification on
this.
> "Thus human progress is massively held back." -- Since You haven't proven
> Your premises/logic to be correct, I don't see this as an obvious
> conclusion.
> "We also have the advantage of hindsight. If put just me equipped with
> modern tools & info up against the entire original constitutional
> convention back then, I think the better qualified one would be me." --
> While People often see Themselves as the "King/Queen" of some topic, that
> perception does not make it true nor does it mean the outcome would have
> been significantly different today, even with the aid of hindsight.
--this is ridiculous. There is simply no point in arguing with
> modern tools & info up against the entire original constitutional
> convention back then, I think the better qualified one would be me." --
> While People often see Themselves as the "King/Queen" of some topic, that
> perception does not make it true nor does it mean the outcome would have
> been significantly different today, even with the aid of hindsight.
somebody who seriously contends that a bunch of ignorant fools, none
of whom could pass a high school graduation test today, all made the
Best Possible Virtually Unimprovable governmental design. Consider
me to have lost the argument -- I don't want your support.
I mean, it'd be like begging a vaccine and Darwin denier to change his mind
about the existence of germs, all the while being told I hadn't Proven My Case.
(I'm assuming it's a vaccine denier with fascinating notions about
capitalization.)
Bruce Gilson
Mar 8, 2015, 5:41:46 PM3/8/15
to electionscience Foundation
even allowed to vote for about 130 years.
Do you know how long it took to get women the vote in your great Switzerland?
They got the right to vote in federal elections in 1971!!!
Warren D Smith
Mar 8, 2015, 6:05:46 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
true.
Look, feedback works, but only in a statistical sense. On average,
it'll make things better faster, but sometimes it will make things
worse (such as prohibition or its repeal -- one of them was clearly a
mistake) and sometimes it will fail on some matter.
What you want, is the maximum realistic amount of feedback.
(It's a bit like driving drunk. The law has decided based on
statistics that it's a bad idea. Except it can work fine and be
therefore a good idea on those occasions.)
I think Switzerland has had, overall, a better historical record as a
democracy than the USA does, and it probably is related to having a
better design. But certainly it is not perfect.
Look, feedback works, but only in a statistical sense. On average,
it'll make things better faster, but sometimes it will make things
worse (such as prohibition or its repeal -- one of them was clearly a
mistake) and sometimes it will fail on some matter.
What you want, is the maximum realistic amount of feedback.
(It's a bit like driving drunk. The law has decided based on
statistics that it's a bad idea. Except it can work fine and be
therefore a good idea on those occasions.)
I think Switzerland has had, overall, a better historical record as a
democracy than the USA does, and it probably is related to having a
better design. But certainly it is not perfect.
Frank
Mar 8, 2015, 7:48:06 PM3/8/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
"You do know about all 500 of those laws because you give a damn? Well great. Except I think you are lying and have not actually read them all. Because you do not have that much time in your life. Actually, I doubt there exists any human who has read them all." -- Seeing as how You know next to nothing about Me, the accusation is uncalled for. Nor am I aware of what proof I could provide to convince You I am not lying. The bills passed are not as complex as a number of Commentators make them out to be and the Congressional Research Service provides a summary of almost every bill considered by the congress.
"Proof: the korean war. End of proof." -- Let's review. I said, "Prove it. At the very least, show 3 specific cases where the U.S. Supreme Court has used 'magic'." You provided 1 example not involving the U.S. Supreme Court. Try again.
"but you claim to have read all 500 laws each year that were passed affecting you!" -- Which You have rejected as a lie. You do not get to rely on information You have rejected in civil discourse.
"Surely in comparison 1 const'l amendment per year is nothing? I mean, the instability here is not exactly huge by comparison." -- I am not convinced You fully understand how constitutions work. As noted by Myself and Others, the U.S. constitution provides a framework in which the federal government acts. As a result a change to the framework tends to have a disproportionately large change relative to any single law.
"And I continue to point out that Switzerland has not exactly collapsed from massive instability." -- Nor has America collapsed from its constitutional inertia. The way I see things, if there is not a need to change, there is a need to not change. You want to make a particular change where I see no need. Even if the Swiss model did bring an equal degree of political stability as the American model, You have not shown a need to abandon the American one.
"they weren't 'unconsciously wrong.' They were 'consciously wrong.' I mean, you think they were unconscious at the time?" -- Are You aware of what the phrase means?
"Now suppose they reverse themselves another time to make a 360. What will you say then?" -- Show Me a case where the Supreme Court has done that. If You can, it would almost certainly be because either (1) an amendment was passed or (2) new relevant information has come to light which was not available at the time of the two decisions. Without specifics, however, I could only provide speculation.
"well, no. Every challenge to the massive NSA surveillance has not been allowed to get to square 1 in the courts, always being dismissed without allowing to proceed to trial." -- You're changing topics now. Before it was abortion and Jim Crow and Everyone supposedly being afraid to sue to a situation where Nobody has been allowed to sue. The two concepts are distinctly different and, unless You want People to think You are just making noise and not sincere when You say You want to make the American system of government a better place, You are going to have to do better at debate. This approach is akin to blame Someone in a red shirt for breaking into Your house and citing as proof the fact Someone in a blue shirt slapped a Cow three states over. The two are not comparable.
To the point of NSA surveillance challenges, however, the challenges have not been permitted /so far/ because, generally speaking, Nobody has yet shown They have been harmed. Without a harm which can either be articulated or is eminent, People typically lack standing to sue in America. Granted, I think a case for harm could be made but, as far as I can tell, no court challenge has raised this argument: the presence of the NSA program creates a chilling effect on discourse, harming the political process and preventing the People from fully exercising Their rights otherwise guaranteed to Them.
"For a 50+ year span, Jim Crow was in effect. What great 'challenges' were offered to it in the courts during that time?" -- We have Buchanan v. Warley, Irene Morgan v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education at the Supreme Court which built upon complaints at the state level in Gebhart v. Belton, Briggs v. Elliott, Davis v. County School Board, Spottswode Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe. There's also McLaurin v. Oklahoma, NAACP v. Alabama,Shelley v. Kraemer, and Boynton v. Virginia. The collection of these case went step by step, dismantling the Jim Crow laws challenged before them.
"And you know, most people only lived for 50 years as an adult. So for their entire life, they were massively denied their rights. Now maybe this is just fine." -- I never said the denial was fine and any reasonable Person reading thru this thread can see that.
"Or, contrariwise, maybe one thinks that substantial progress on massive rights violations, ought to happen actually during one's life. You know, for those incredibly impatient people that actually want a life during their life. They must be really odd, huh?" -- Given the chain of cases I have cited above, a good deal of progress /was/ made, even if it obviously has not been enough. Keep in Mind the key case to Jim Crow, Plessy v. Ferguson, was premised on the notion Whites and Blacks would receive equal treatment. As it became clear in case after case, the Supreme court would dismantle the Plessy principle more and more, culminating in Brown.
"But if we magnanimously grant, that huge obvious problems ought to get fixed during a small fraction of a lifetime, then we are forced to admit, that the present const'l amendment and court challenge system, is broken, because they plainly don't do so." -- No, because there simply was not enough of a national consensus to implement the changes We acknowledge needed to occur. I find no evidence to suggest Your proposed method of amendment would have made any difference in the matter and might have given a sense of "validity" to the Jim Crow laws which needed to be swept away.
"If, like you, we think that 1 lifetime is but a mere drop in the ocean of time, of no importance, and are perfectly happy living our entire lives in a state of massive oppression because lifetimes are nothing, why then fine, the constitution is just fine as is, no need for any speedup." -- Again You are putting words in My mouth and are starting to act less like Someone to be taken seriously and more like Someone throwing a temper tantrum with Your approach of "Let Me misrepresent what He's saying; that'll get Him to agree with Me." You are embarrassing Yourself. I suggest You stop.
In re "making a good show of it": this is what happens when You reside in a nation with People of varying viewpoints; it takes time for change to occur and the more important the change the harder We must work.
"no, the 4 rule the opposite way, to the 5, is what I said. I could name 100 cases of that." -- Good point; I stand corrected on the sentence interpretation.
"But since I know you are wrong about no const'l issue at stake in Hobby Lobby -- read Ginsburg's dissent -- I'm afraid your statements carry no force of confidence." -- Justice Ginsburg's dissent is woefully incorrect. Her Honor levels accusations against the court's majority which are demonstrably false. In Hobby Lobby, the court ruled based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I know this because I read the actual opinion available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf.
"In the other 4 cases I'm afraid I do not even know what you are talking about." -- Herein lies the problem. The rulings, briefs, and what have You are available for One to read, as with many other cases, but One needs to actually read them before One can intelligently make any statements about them.
In re traction: even in the current 2-party dominated system, Politicians pay attention to the priorities of Voters. Alternative voting systems appear to Me to have a few problems to get passed before they can become a high priority for Voters. (1) They have to know about them. (2) They have to see how those systems will tend to be better than "first past the post". (3) Advocates of those systems will need to make Voters feel free to give the idea genuine consideration and not feel pressured to agree lest Someone call Them nasty names for disagreeing with Them. A failure of any of these three conditions to be met will almost certainly result in Voters putting Their understandably limited resources into worry about other issues.
"There is simply no point in arguing with somebody who seriously contends that a bunch of ignorant fools, none of whom could pass a high school graduation test today, all made the Best Possible Virtually Unimprovable governmental design. Consider me to have lost the argument -- I don't want your support. I mean, it'd be like begging a vaccine and Darwin denier to change his mind about the existence of germs, all the while being told I hadn't Proven My Case. (I'm assuming it's a vaccine denier with fascinating notions about capitalization.)" -- So, let Me get this straight, You make an argument, I show how each premise is flawed and how, even if the premises were not flawed the conclusions You argue simply do not follow, You verbally berate Me, and when I tell You to stop, somehow I'm the equivalent of a "vaccine and Darwin denier"?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Warren D Smith
Mar 14, 2015, 1:15:42 PM3/14/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
Another recent example of what happens when your
constitution is too hard to amend was just provided
by Kentucky (their state constitution).
See this AP News article:
"41 Kentucky counties have jailers but no jails"
11 January 2015
based on an investigation by Kentucky Center for Investigative
Reporting and WFPL radio. Looking into it a bit further:
The KY state constituion says that in each county "jailers" must be elected.
But many KY counties have no jails. Oops. So as a result, KY elects 41 jailers,
who are paid $20K to $71K to sit around and do nothing, costing KY
about $2M per year.
Well actually, they generally supposedly can be found useful things to
do, even in the
counties without jails. But several jailers have full time "side"
jobs. One of the jail-less
jailers employs 5 deputies, while another has 11 part-timers.
But don't worry. The Founders were very smart people, and it is foolish to
make it easier to amend their wisdom. Let's just keep doing this another
1500 years or so.
And after all, I'm sure there's nothing else this silly anyplace else
in any constitution.
So no reason to worry at all.
constitution is too hard to amend was just provided
by Kentucky (their state constitution).
See this AP News article:
"41 Kentucky counties have jailers but no jails"
11 January 2015
based on an investigation by Kentucky Center for Investigative
Reporting and WFPL radio. Looking into it a bit further:
The KY state constituion says that in each county "jailers" must be elected.
But many KY counties have no jails. Oops. So as a result, KY elects 41 jailers,
who are paid $20K to $71K to sit around and do nothing, costing KY
about $2M per year.
Well actually, they generally supposedly can be found useful things to
do, even in the
counties without jails. But several jailers have full time "side"
jobs. One of the jail-less
jailers employs 5 deputies, while another has 11 part-timers.
But don't worry. The Founders were very smart people, and it is foolish to
make it easier to amend their wisdom. Let's just keep doing this another
1500 years or so.
And after all, I'm sure there's nothing else this silly anyplace else
in any constitution.
So no reason to worry at all.
Warren D Smith
Mar 14, 2015, 1:36:23 PM3/14/15
to electio...@googlegroups.com
A larger news story re the 41 jail-less jailers in Kentucky:
http://wfpl.org/only-in-kentucky-jailers-without-jails/
It has been suggested as a fix, that the jailers be paid essentially zero.
Of course, since the KY constitution is set in stone and almost impossible to
change, we wouldn't want to get rid of the jailers with no jails, nor
would we would want to stop electing or stop paying them. Oh no, that
would be unconstitutional. Instead, the suggestion would be to cut
their pay to say, $1 per year. That would save KY about $2 million
per year (but the heavy expense of their bogus "elections" each time
would remain). Of course, that would conflict with minimum wage laws.
But wait, there might be a way out of this. I know, we could MAKE THE
CONSTITUTION EASIER TO AMEND! If fixing a $2 million problem is way
harder than $2 million worth of effort, maybe it should be easier to
fix problems! Maybe if it were easier to amend their constitutions,
we would not be stuck with idiotic unfixable government designs!
Could it be?
http://wfpl.org/only-in-kentucky-jailers-without-jails/
It has been suggested as a fix, that the jailers be paid essentially zero.
Of course, since the KY constitution is set in stone and almost impossible to
change, we wouldn't want to get rid of the jailers with no jails, nor
would we would want to stop electing or stop paying them. Oh no, that
would be unconstitutional. Instead, the suggestion would be to cut
their pay to say, $1 per year. That would save KY about $2 million
per year (but the heavy expense of their bogus "elections" each time
would remain). Of course, that would conflict with minimum wage laws.
But wait, there might be a way out of this. I know, we could MAKE THE
CONSTITUTION EASIER TO AMEND! If fixing a $2 million problem is way
harder than $2 million worth of effort, maybe it should be easier to
fix problems! Maybe if it were easier to amend their constitutions,
we would not be stuck with idiotic unfixable government designs!
Could it be?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages