Minority rule politics

[michigancat]

Break Up the United States.  Or implement Constitution 2.0.  Or both.

we absolutely should have constitution 2.0. there's a lot of good there but it could use a refresh to reflect modern times.

We've made no progress the past 2 years. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=37721.msg1576516#msg1576516

wow I have great ideas

Should the constitution still be a thing in 2016?

there's some good stuff in there imo

it could still probably use a refresh. And in the refresh, specify the need for a refresh every 10 years or 25 years or whatever.

[Spracne]

That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.

[michigancat]

That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.

it's actually pretty great because it allows for handling of unforeseen technology changes in a much better way than we currently do. Adjust the constitution with the technology.

Big topics to address:

voting: why the eff isn't this crap online and why aren't we automatically registered?
state lines: why the eff do we allow them to make zero sense at all?
The District of Columbia: Why in the holy eff don't they get representatives in Congress?
health care and housing: why the eff aren't these "rights" in a civilized, enormously wealthy society?
guns: reword the 2nd amendment to a way that makes sense in the current context
Homosexuality/race/: need some more robust rough ridin' constitutional protections here
criminal justice reform: can we come up with a better rough ridin' way to deal with crime and punishment and address it in the constitution? LIke rough ridin' permanently ban for-profit prisons in the constitution for a start. And come up with a better way to convict people than juries. (Or at least talk about it)

you get the idea. at Constitutional Convention 2.0 you could decide how often to revisit and probably make certain rights virtually untouchable (speech, religion, search and seizure, hell even guns, etc.) but make it easier to adjust to the times than the current system.

[Trim]

[Spracne]

That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.

it's actually pretty great because it allows for handling of unforeseen technology changes in a much better way than we currently do. Adjust the constitution with the technology.

Big topics to address:

voting: why the eff isn't this crap online and why aren't we automatically registered?
state lines: why the eff do we allow them to make zero sense at all?
The District of Columbia: Why in the holy eff don't they get representatives in Congress?
health care and housing: why the eff aren't these "rights" in a civilized, enormously wealthy society?
guns: reword the 2nd amendment to a way that makes sense in the current context
Homosexuality/race/: need some more robust rough ridin' constitutional protections here
criminal justice reform: can we come up with a better rough ridin' way to deal with crime and punishment and address it in the constitution? LIke rough ridin' permanently ban for-profit prisons in the constitution for a start. And come up with a better way to convict people than juries. (Or at least talk about it)

you get the idea. at Constitutional Convention 2.0 you could decide how often to revisit and probably make certain rights virtually untouchable (speech, religion, search and seizure, hell even guns, etc.) but make it easier to adjust to the times than the current system.

I personally agree with you on many of the issues you've identified, but most of those issues are fully capable of being addressed by the elected branches of government. And yet that has not happened. The process of changing the Constitution requires a higher threshold of assent than acts of Congress, so what makes you think it's feasible?

[michigancat]

That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.

it's actually pretty great because it allows for handling of unforeseen technology changes in a much better way than we currently do. Adjust the constitution with the technology.

Big topics to address:

voting: why the eff isn't this crap online and why aren't we automatically registered?
state lines: why the eff do we allow them to make zero sense at all?
The District of Columbia: Why in the holy eff don't they get representatives in Congress?
health care and housing: why the eff aren't these "rights" in a civilized, enormously wealthy society?
guns: reword the 2nd amendment to a way that makes sense in the current context
Homosexuality/race/: need some more robust rough ridin' constitutional protections here
criminal justice reform: can we come up with a better rough ridin' way to deal with crime and punishment and address it in the constitution? LIke rough ridin' permanently ban for-profit prisons in the constitution for a start. And come up with a better way to convict people than juries. (Or at least talk about it)

you get the idea. at Constitutional Convention 2.0 you could decide how often to revisit and probably make certain rights virtually untouchable (speech, religion, search and seizure, hell even guns, etc.) but make it easier to adjust to the times than the current system.

I personally agree with you on many of the issues you've identified, but most of those issues are fully capable of being addressed by the elected branches of government. And yet that has not happened. The process of changing the Constitution requires a higher threshold of assent than acts of Congress, so what makes you think it's feasible?

I didn't say it was feasible, but it should be discussed and investigated (not unlike topics such as reparations for government-sponsored racism). Ideally it would be initiated by a party in power that stands to lose some of that power overall because then it would be viewed as more credible and not just one side pointing fingers at the other for being selfish.

Another thing, let's address the rough ridin' 2 party nonsense while we're at it.

[sys]

michigancat, we can't even pass a law saying our government shouldn't kidnap children.

[Spracne]

Well, ok. I won't object to a purely hypothetical mental experiment. But I think changing it every 10-25 years is a horrible idea. 

[sys]

Well, ok. I won't object to a purely hypothetical mental experiment. But I think changing it every 10-25 years is a horrible idea.

surely you can agree that every so often we should come to a grinding halt and allow our political parties to fight each other to the death to see if they can completely uproot the fundaments of our society to disadvantage the other party for the next decade or two?

[Spracne]

Well, ok. I won't object to a purely hypothetical mental experiment. But I think changing it every 10-25 years is a horrible idea.

surely you can agree that every so often we should come to a grinding halt and allow our political parties to fight each other to the death to see if they can completely uproot the fundaments of our society to disadvantage the other party for the next decade or two?

I see we agree. I was mostly thinking about it from the standpoint that people and businesses organize themselves around legal notice, confidence, and predictability. Fundamentally changing that every decade or so would be frightening. Constitutions should be enduring.

[michigancat]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

[Spracne]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

[michigancat]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!

[michigancat]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!

I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.

[Spracne]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!

I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.

So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?

[michigancat]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!

I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.

So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?

Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.

[Spracne]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!

I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.

So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?

Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.

Hey, I'm with you on the online voting thing. I just don't think you could trust a supermajority of The People to agree to the things you believe are good and right.

[wetwillie]

Lol online voting, you people crack me up.

[michigancat]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!

I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.

So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?

Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.

Hey, I'm with you on the online voting thing. I just don't think you could trust a supermajority of The People to agree to the things you believe are good and right.

I'm not sure you could get anything in the current Constitution passed through a super majority today.

[Spracne]

You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.

You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.

Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?

Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!

I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.

So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?

Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.

Hey, I'm with you on the online voting thing. I just don't think you could trust a supermajority of The People to agree to the things you believe are good and right.

I'm not sure you could get anything in the current Constitution passed through a super majority today.

Yup. Need more parties.

[michigancat]

What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?

[Trim]

What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?

The Constitution saying so?

[Spracne]

What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?

I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?

[michigancat]

What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?

I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?

well, it might be the best but keep in you haven't exactly defined what "supermajority" means to you. Are you referring to the current process to amend the constitution?

But a sumpermajority is the best way to give a stamp of approval to ratify a new constitution, and we could only get a small portion of the constitution passed with a supermajority today, what does that say about the current status of the constitution?

[Spracne]

What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?

I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?

well, it might be the best but keep in you haven't exactly defined what "supermajority" means to you. Are you referring to the current process to amend the constitution?

But a sumpermajority is the best way to give a stamp of approval to ratify a new constitution, and we could only get a small portion of the constitution passed with a supermajority today, what does that say about the current status of the constitution?

That too many people don't even know what's good for 'em?