The unworkable Constitutional system

[Comadreja]

Why are we struggling to reclaim advances made 50 years ago, and struggling to prevent our society from returning to the 18th century?
The Constitution has stopped working. its checks and balances have made forward motion impossible, and regression inevitable. The British had their own sacred Ancient Constitution and for centuries were stuck in corruption and futility like us. They solved it by going parliamentary. Lazare spells it out in "Frozen Republic," and implies that we are so immobilized by resistance to change that only progressive influences from outside have any chance of changing things.

[bryant69]

1. You're going to need a stronger case than this

I mean, I know the guidelines say 5 lines, but that's a minimum not a maximum. I think you'd do better to actually make a case if there is one to be made.

But simply complaining that Republicans have power so we need to get rid of the constitution is not very convencing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[maxsolomon]

5. if we were parliamentary

as prime minister, president moron would have been exposed as a sham the first time he opened his gob.

he would never have made it past MP.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. The one redeeming fact about the Constitution

is that it can be amended. That is the one reason it has served us well these past 200 years. What we need to guard against are groups (ie Congress) giving up their Constitutional rights. We need a vigorous group of watchdogs, ala the ACLU, to make sure that Constitutional liberties and responsibilities are maintained.

[redeye]

8. The problem with amendments

On the one hand, the winner-take-all system means that a majority of 60% is almost always enough to get all majorities needed. On the other hand, the amendment process takes too long; I don't think any amendment made it in less than 2 years, even though many situatiosn require quicker amending.

[Exultant Democracy]

3. If we went parliamentary...

the progressives would have a huge edge. The conservatives know this and would never let it happen.

[JanMichael]

4. You're right. They know that they'd lose.

The current system IS adverse to Change and since Progressive Thought is in itself Change...You know what I mean.

[maxsolomon]

6. prime minister GW Bush?

as prime minister, president moron would have been exposed as a sham the first time he opened his gob.

he would never have made it past MP.

[Xithras]

7. It will never happen

I used to think that we should scrap the Constitution as well, until a political historian friend pointed something out: By definition, the "United States of America" consists of 50 territories that have agreed to put the U.S. Constitution above their own constitutions. Legally, they are ONLY bound by their common subservience to the Federal system outlined within the Constitution. Abolish the Constitution and you abolish the Federal System. Abolish the Federal System and each of the states would effectively become independent.

While we could be certain that the northeastern states and California would rejoin the new Union, I wouldn't be so sure about Texas, large stretches of the midwest, Hawaii, and much of the South. This would lead to two possibilities: 1) The "new union" states force the other states to join the "improved" union, triggering Civil War II or 2) We end up with anywhere from 2 to 10 new countries built from the pieces of the former USA...each posessing whatever military equipment and nuclear weapons happened to be within their borders at the time of the dissolution.

It may be a nice sounding idea, but it could easily become a nightmare (could you imagine a Freeper controlled Montana with nuclear-tipped ICBM's?)

[redeye]

9. Not necessarily

If there were a new constitutional convention, then the states would be inside the federal government by the new constitution. The current constitution is not the only possible legitimacy to a government, you know.

[Xithras]

12. Nope. The nation dissolves.

You're forgetting how the union was formed. The United States didn't "create" the states, the people in the territories petitioned to join the union AS a state. There's a subtle but important difference there. The fifty areas each independently approved the placement of the Federal Constitution above their own, and then requested to be admitted to the union as a state. That federal union is DEFINED by the current constitution! When you toss the constitution, you are removing and recreating the federal union ,and each of the states would again have to re-approve their memberships. Given the opportunity to bolt from the union, I know that several wouldn't hesitate (Hawaii and Texas are givens).

What you are forgetting is that the legitimacy of a democratic government stems from the will of the governed. Each of the 50 states is part of the U.S. because it's people WANTED to join the union and approved it as it existed. The Civil War proved that there is no way to secede from the union, and that the state subservience to the constitution is unbreakeable, but you're overriding that when you delete the constitution. The constitution of the United States is the ONLY bond holding the union together. While you can modify the constitution via convention, you cannot simply replace it.

[Comadreja]

13. You illustrate my point

"it will never happen" is what most would think....it's "inviolable" and untouchable, perfect in itself, conceived by the demigod Founders. But it has been changed, as early as Madison's time. When lilly-white Wyoming and Idaho have as much Senate representation as California or New York, where is the democracy? This may have originally been a good idea, but now it is laughably outdated. The system invites corruption and payoffs. Another example is the Electoral System. It has no purpose other than assuring that popular democracy can be thwarted by the white elites if they so choose.

[rman]

10. parliament didn't save UK from fascist leadership

the constitution prevents (or should prevent) certain powers from growing stronger than the people, that's why these powers are working to dismantle the constitution.

[redeye]

11. should, but not always does

The constitution doesn't guarantee people the right to vote; it only gives very general guidelines full of loopholes to the states. Its form is this of a federation, not a nation. And its amendment procedure sucks (see reply #9).