American Constitution

[Strike For The South]

Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds;
for riches do not endure forever, and a crown is not secure for all generations.

the worry here is not Kim, but trump

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds;
for riches do not endure forever, and a crown is not secure for all generations.

the worry here is not Kim, but trump

No, I don't think so.

Societal collapse is not caused by one man - historians like to blame Commodus for the fall of Rome but he wasn't solely responsible. The first thing you need to recognise about Trump is that he is the symptom, not the disease.

The solution is not to come down to his level, to "fight all his appointments" in the Senate as some were suggesting when he won.

The solution is to work with Trump, within the system, and oppose him within the system - to be better than him.

[Montmorency]

No, I don't think so.

Societal collapse is not caused by one man - historians like to blame Commodus for the fall of Rome but he wasn't solely responsible. The first thing you need to recognise about Trump is that he is the symptom, not the disease.

The solution is not to come down to his level, to "fight all his appointments" in the Senate as some were suggesting when he won.

The solution is to work with Trump, within the system, and oppose him within the system - to be better than him.

Or, as a symptom, we take from it that the old system has failed and we are already coming to the beginning of a transition to a new one. If that's the case, then it is not a matter of "working within" but of going through the motions until we meet the inflection point.

The only question is, what will that look like? Will we start enumerating "republics" like France?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or, as a symptom, we take from it that the old system has failed and we are already coming to the beginning of a transition to a new one. If that's the case, then it is not a matter of "working within" but of going through the motions until we meet the inflection point.

The only question is, what will that look like? Will we start enumerating "republics" like France?

France's political system has gone through evolutionary change "enumerating" its Republics.

If you are suggesting your system is reaching systemic collapse then we are all in deep doodoo.

[Montmorency]

France's political system has gone through evolutionary change "enumerating" its Republics.

If you are suggesting your system is reaching systemic collapse then we are all in deep doodoo.

I agree that the latest one, 4th to 5th, was "evolutionary", and a transition of similar magnitude or character (adjusted for the USA) is what I think we can anticipate. (Probably will involve more checks on the POTUS, though I hope not too many, and on party reign in the executive).

Arguably it could be our Third Republic, if you count the Civil War and Reconstruction as another transitionary phase where the nation transformed its cultural and institutions, as well as its Constitution.

However Trump leaves the presidency, I suppose the end of his administration will mark the proper (in hindsight) beginning to the event, and it will preoccupy most of the 2020s in its extent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Constitutional Change is the last thing the US needs. The problem isn't legal, it's cultural.

About the only legal change you need is the abolition of Term Limits. In the two-Party state like the US Term Limits lead to a "tic-tok" where one party gets in (tic) and then get's reflected (tok) and then the other gets in.

[Montmorency]

Constitutional Change is the last thing the US needs. The problem isn't legal, it's cultural.

About the only legal change you need is the abolition of Term Limits. In the two-Party state like the US Term Limits lead to a "tic-tok" where one party gets in (tic) and then get's reflected (tok) and then the other gets in.

Why not? Certainly it's both legal and cultural, the point is that we're reaching one of the moments of accelerated change in both.

Which term limits, presidential? I don't think anyone cares about that today. Certainly there's no impetus to change in absence of direct reforms to the electoral and party system. You will find support for Congressional term limits, even defined Supreme Court terms - but revoking presidential term limits, no.

Momentous changes come directly in response to precipitating factors and events. The 2-term limit came after the quadruple election of FDR. The 25th Amendment for chain of succession came after a long history of presidential deaths and incapacitations (Kennedy's being the latest), as well as vice-presidential vacancies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So FDR got elected four times, FDR was awesome.

That was not a problem - except because certain Americans wanted to make it a problem.

Fact is, FDR's New Deal provided what America needed and then he provided the needed leadership during the war; thus making him a great peacetime and wartime President.

All Term Limits do is prevent you re-electing Clinton, which gets you Bush Jnr and reelecting Obama, which gets you Trump.

How are term limits helping America?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mod - can we get this split off into a separate discussion on the American Constitution, please?

[Montmorency]

So FDR got elected four times, FDR was awesome.

That was not a problem - except because certain Americans wanted to make it a problem.

Fact is, FDR's New Deal provided what America needed and then he provided the needed leadership during the war; thus making him a great peacetime and wartime President.

All Term Limits do is prevent you re-electing Clinton, which gets you Bush Jnr and reelecting Obama, which gets you Trump.

How are term limits helping America?

I would agree with you (other than term limits somehow being a direct cause of bad presidents getting elected), but what I said was simply that no one actually feels the need to change it, or at least not to the extent that they would agitate for it at the expense of anything else.

At the moment, the presidential term limit is a purely academic subject, not a part of the zeitgeist or national consciousness. One way or another it's not up for debate, not due to lack of merit for its own sake, but for lack of interest.


Mod - can we get this split off into a separate discussion on the American Constitution, please?

Hey, listen, can you wait on me to start a new thread that includes this subject? I mentioned that I would in another thread, it's just that I haven't come up with personal commentary to add to the motivating material up to now.

So I'll leave it up to the group then to get the ball rolling, just give me a moment to offer the prompt. I'll call it "The Future of America and the American World Order".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would agree with you (other than term limits somehow being a direct cause of bad presidents getting elected), but what I said was simply that no one actually feels the need to change it, or at least not to the extent that they would agitate for it at the expense of anything else.

At the moment, the presidential term limit is a purely academic subject, not a part of the zeitgeist or national consciousness. One way or another it's not up for debate, not due to lack of merit for its own sake, but for lack of interest.

I misunderstood you there, sorry about that.

OK - so no-one sees it as an issue.

Ask yourself though, could Trump have beat Obama? Would Trump have won the nomination if he was facing Obama as opposed to Sanders/Clinton? The point is not that it "results in bad Presidents" but that the enforced change of candidate often results in a less-impressive offering by the sitting party when the current President is so impressive.


Hey, listen, can you wait on me to start a new thread that includes this subject? I mentioned that I would in another thread, it's just that I haven't come up with personal commentary to add to the motivating material up to now.

So I'll leave it up to the group then to get the ball rolling, just give me a moment to offer the prompt. I'll call it "The Future of America and the American World Order".

That sounds like a good idea - we've clearly moved away from talking about Trumnp, though - so we're going to need to split soonish.

[Pannonian]

Constitutional Change is the last thing the US needs. The problem isn't legal, it's cultural.

About the only legal change you need is the abolition of Term Limits. In the two-Party state like the US Term Limits lead to a "tic-tok" where one party gets in (tic) and then get's reflected (tok) and then the other gets in.

What the US needs, as does the UK, is a balance between democracy and technocracy. Technocracy without democracy is China, where you have scientists and engineers running the country without admitting any other views outside their circle. Democracy without technocracy gets you Corbyn and the Brexit boys, where you have experienced rhetoricians fighting elections by promising the sky, then taking no responsibility for keeping their promises. The ideal is responsible politicians talking to the electorate about realities and possibilities. In many ways the problem is as much with the electorates as with the politicians.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What the US needs, as does the UK, is a balance between democracy and technocracy. Technocracy without democracy is China, where you have scientists and engineers running the country without admitting any other views outside their circle. Democracy without technocracy gets you Corbyn and the Brexit boys, where you have experienced rhetoricians fighting elections by promising the sky, then taking no responsibility for keeping their promises. The ideal is responsible politicians talking to the electorate about realities and possibilities. In many ways the problem is as much with the electorates as with the politicians.

When our republic was founded, the suffrage was restricted on some since-superseded cultural grounds (Sex), some abjectly idiotic views of humanity (Race), and the need to be a person of some property (land, business of X value, etc.). The latter restriction was not set at a high level -- most journeymen, most landowners, virtually any business owner, etc. -- qualified for the suffrage. The last state dropped the property clause in 1856.

Would you think it appropriate to re-institute property restrictions?

[Pannonian]

When our republic was founded, the suffrage was restricted on some since-superseded cultural grounds (Sex), some abjectly idiotic views of humanity (Race), and the need to be a person of some property (land, business of X value, etc.). The latter restriction was not set at a high level -- most journeymen, most landowners, virtually any business owner, etc. -- qualified for the suffrage. The last state dropped the property clause in 1856.

Would you think it appropriate to re-institute property restrictions?

I'm not sure what is appropriate, but I'm pretty sure reality TV, principally shows that encourage viewers to vote on inconsequential things, is bad for democracy. What we see now in the UK, and AFAICS in the US as well, is an extreme form of liberal democracy, with the worst aspects of each. The liberal expectation of individual rights but without the accompanying assumption of responsibilities (such as to research a subject or to find informed voices on a subject), and the knowledge that a democracy confers an equal voice for the uninformed as for the expert. I'm probably seeing this from a UK soft left perspective, but in the US the alt right has been particularly vigorous in exploiting this combination, in particular their radio channels and their followers.

What I'd like to see in the UK is an elected Commons plus an appointed Lords filled with experts from their fields. This balances the democracy (Commons) with a technocracy (Lords). Things work differently in the US, as the two Houses balance representation (Congress) and states (Senate), and the headline role is directly elected. All parts of government are geared towards democracy, which can be a problem when the electorate manages to combine liberalism and democracy in the above unsatisfactory manner. Perhaps fact checking for politicians would help, but then who's going to keep track? One can't force voters to be more mindful of facts.

[Montmorency]

One can't force voters to be more mindful of facts.

This is the critical part. Not just on facts, but the basic parameters of anything. The movement around Trump is a postmodern bonanza.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... One can't force voters to be more mindful of facts.

Too true. Perhaps a quiz which must be passed in order to vote. Something tricky, like noting five candidates in that election and asking the voter to be able to identify the political affiliations of three of them....

Or correctly calculate the proper change to be made on a purchase....

Or some other means of demonstrating the tiniest gasp of hope that modern democracy is NOT an essay in ignorance....

I set my sights too high. :wall:

[Pannonian]

Too true. Perhaps a quiz which must be passed in order to vote. Something tricky, like noting five candidates in that election and asking the voter to be able to identify the political affiliations of three of them....

Or correctly calculate the proper change to be made on a purchase....

Or some other means of demonstrating the tiniest gasp of hope that modern democracy is NOT an essay in ignorance....

I set my sights too high. :wall:

Are there any institutions of a US government that might be able to model my idea of a technocratic second house? I know that that idea is a pipedream even in the UK, as it's traditionally used as a dumping ground for past it politicians and even when they demonstrate some independence, they are routinely threatened by the Commons. However, that idea is at least theoretically possible in the British model. Is the idea possible in the US model?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have nothing to say except Pannonian's conception of technocracy is wildly off if he thinks China is anywhere close to it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are there any institutions of a US government that might be able to model my idea of a technocratic second house? I know that that idea is a pipedream even in the UK, as it's traditionally used as a dumping ground for past it politicians and even when they demonstrate some independence, they are routinely threatened by the Commons. However, that idea is at least theoretically possible in the British model. Is the idea possible in the US model?

Our Senators used to represent their state governments in most states, now they are directly elected. When appointed by the states, some actually appointed based on demonstrated skill in some field of endeavor....some.....sometimes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Our Senators used to represent their state governments in most states, now they are directly elected. When appointed by the states, some actually appointed based on demonstrated skill in some field of endeavor....some.....sometimes.
And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level

Yep...that too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level

But...the more local the political office in question, the less ignorant the voter about the issues (at least marginally). Moreover, we are more willing to ignore incumbency at those levels and there is somewhat more turnover in office -- which I think healthy.

[rory_20_uk]

The Senators are starting to have more clout - not leaving for the summer and passing laws preventing Trump undertaking certain activities - with a veto-proof amount.

With any luck this will continue until apart from offensive tweets he is the most hamstrung President in history (finally a first!)

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The virtue in having an unelected Upper House is not merely in having "Technocrats" to revise your laws, it is in having an Upper House whose purpose is explicitly revisionary, because unlike the Lower House it does NOT have a democratic mandate to create law.

Opposition to an Elected Senate in the UK has nothing to do with support for traditional aristocratic privilege and everything to do with not wanting to have a genuine competitor to the House of Commons.

[HopAlongBunny]

[QUOTE=Philippus Flavius Homovallumus;2053756188]Opposition to an Elected Senate in the UK has nothing to do with support for traditional aristocratic privilege and everything to do with not wanting to have a genuine competitor to the House of Commons./QUOTE]

Much the same debate in Canada. Elect the Upper House to give it legitimacy; If it is elected, what differentiates it from the House of Commons? Powers will remain to edit/revise and not initiate money bills; Then why change it?
The Senate, as conceptualized in the Constitution, is hard to argue with; reality makes a mockery of the concept - always has. Between reform and abolition I am a hard convert to abolition.

[Montmorency]

The virtue in having an unelected Upper House is not merely in having "Technocrats" to revise your laws, it is in having an Upper House whose purpose is explicitly revisionary, because unlike the Lower House it does NOT have a democratic mandate to create law.

Opposition to an Elected Senate in the UK has nothing to do with support for traditional aristocratic privilege and everything to do with not wanting to have a genuine competitor to the House of Commons.

From the point of view of the Founders, I think they would prefer two chambers competing to in effect a fully-unicameral chamber.

How about an elected body of technocrats? To be eligible to vote for this upper chamber, you must hold a degree of higher or specialized education (and more-or-less the same qualifications to run).

[Pannonian]

From the point of view of the Founders, I think they would prefer two chambers competing to in effect a fully-unicameral chamber.

How about an elected body of technocrats? To be eligible to vote for this upper chamber, you must hold a degree of higher or specialized education (and more-or-less the same qualifications to run).

Isn't that going to tend towards a body of elected lawyers? At least in the UK there is a specialist degree for politicians, focusing on economics.

[Montmorency]

Isn't that going to tend towards a body of elected lawyers? At least in the UK there is a specialist degree for politicians, focusing on economics.

Yes, that is a knot. We already have a good representation of lawyers and law degrees in both chambers - but I don't know if it makes sense to restrict law degree-holders' eligibility in running for office in the new technocratic chamber. A jury-like random selection of candidates on the ticket would probably be too onerous an obligation. Hmm...

[Husar]

Eh, why not go by reputable and necessary scientific fields?
A certain number of physics experts, chemists, biologists, behaviorists and other fields. Probably shouldn't go too far down the specialization rabbit hole. If they're elected, the leaders of the resorts/cabinet could/should also be chosen from among them. So that for example the secretary of education actually knows something about education. I also really liked the last secretary of energy, Ernest Moniz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz). The current incumbent has a bachelor of science in animal science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#University). :shrug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

No one has sold the argument that someone with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering is preferable than someone with a law degree.

[Husar]

No one has sold the argument that someone with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering is preferable than someone with a law degree.

Is that a problem or are you just stating that?
What about someone with a nuclear family?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is that a problem or are you just stating that?
What about someone with a nuclear family?

It's a problem since everyone seems to just be accepting that "technocracy" is inherently good.

Someone with an advanced degree in nuclear engineering could make a very, very good bill on updating the nuclear triad for the 21st century. But what would they know about literally any other subject under the sun?

Also, I am sure Mark Zuckerburg could write a tremendous piece of legislation regarding internet privacy with his extensive experience in managing Facebook...but it would only be a bill to strip it away further.

Have many of you guys even talked to some of the people coming out of college with STEM degrees? There is a guy probably designing reactors right now who once said in class, "Bisphenol A is only dangerous to men. Women can absorb estrogen mimicking components since their bodies are tuned for it."

[Montmorency]

It's a problem since everyone seems to just be accepting that "technocracy" is inherently good.

Someone with an advanced degree in nuclear engineering could make a very, very good bill on updating the nuclear triad for the 21st century. But what would they know about literally any other subject under the sun?

Also, I am sure Mark Zuckerburg could write a tremendous piece of legislation regarding internet privacy with his extensive experience in managing Facebook...but it would only be a bill to strip it away further.

Have many of you guys even talked to some of the people coming out of college with STEM degrees? There is a guy probably designing reactors right now who once said in class, "Bisphenol A is only dangerous to men. Women can absorb estrogen mimicking components since their bodies are tuned for it."

So are we talking about technocracy, or STEM people in law-making? Is it the structure, or the people?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So are we talking about technocracy, or STEM people in law-making? Is it the structure, or the people?

I don't see the distinction you are making. Are we not all operating under the notion that technocracy as applied to our own system would be a legislative body of STEM people?

Or are we really wasting our time discussing the notion of an undemocratic body of bureaucrats that simply make decisions about their own little sphere of knowledge without any input from the public?

[Montmorency]

Or are we really wasting our time discussing the notion of an undemocratic body of bureaucrats that simply make decisions about their own little sphere of knowledge without any input from the public?



Social scientists would need to be included in any arrangement, but lets leave aside the particular of "who is a technocrat" for now.

We need to ask what the function of government would be, and how structure serves that function. I don't have many ideas or feelings, but a few points I can make right now:

1. Undemocratic technocracy, or at least democratically-unaccountable technocracy, had a remarkably poor track record in the 20th century.
1.a. One of the biggest failings of the EU project is that it failed to politicize itself and has still failed to do so today other than being the new, passive, subject of politicization by populists. If you cared about the EU and its future, you were either an in-group elite, or a vociferous hater in the mold of Fragony. But this may be less a failure of technocracy than of the "pragmatic incrementalism" of national democratic politicians.

2. Is there more to democracy and democratic ideals than merely casting a vote? Perhaps there is a way a technocratic government, whether appointed by direct election or otherwise, can be democratic by reference to something other than franchise.
2.a. Would this require more politicization, when technocracy is usually conceived of as apolitical, and would politicization fundamentally damage putative advantages of technocracy (which broadly are greater responsiveness and effectiveness)?

[Brenus]

I think the problem with Constitution written during the 18th Century based on principles "discovered" during the 17th starts when it is becoming as "holly" book so being "interpreted".
The French Republics were not continuous... 1st was until the 1st Empire (if you considered the Consulate as part of the 1st Republic), the 2nd was cut shot by the 3rd Empire, 3rd by Petain's Vichy regime which abolished the Republic. 4th was an attempt the reinstalled a kind of third, but in including modern concepts for the time, i.e. women rights, Communist Party, but in keeping the old rulers in powers. The regime failed at the decolonisation test, so the 5th came under a kind of Coup from General de Gaulle...
From the 1st to the 5th, a lot of new concepts were included, and the 5th is now showing its limit, when you think the the 2nd at the Presidential 2nd round was abstention.
France has now reach the moment where it has to adapt, to renew the political pact between the citizens and the National Representation. Traditionally, it was done by revolutions, civil wars and wars.
I am keen on avoiding the tradition.
So, we need a new constitution, so we need a "constituante", where elected members will discussed the new rules which will be the skeletons of the law, including the new French reality and the need to give democracy and the citizens more control on the elected, in order to be able to get rid of the corrupted and the liars which cheated in order to be elected and just do the reverse of when they promised. I thing this process exist in some US states...

As the US is concerned, the Constitution will not change until some courageous one tell the citizens that the Constitution is not a the word of semi-gods, but humans themselves included in their time.

[Husar]

It's a problem since everyone seems to just be accepting that "technocracy" is inherently good.

Someone with an advanced degree in nuclear engineering could make a very, very good bill on updating the nuclear triad for the 21st century. But what would they know about literally any other subject under the sun?

But that would be just the same with a lawyer. I specifically proposed making the inclusion of certain fields necessary so the expertise in the group would not be one-sided. That's because I also thought that having just the most popular scientists being elected by the populace is a very bad idea. In fact it might even be a bad idea to have the population elect them alone. One could give a certain percentage of votes to the scientific community the people come from. But even that enters new problems where science becomes politicized as business interests would begin to bribe and influence them just like they do the lawyers and the population. The only true solution can be to use CRISPR to remove our genetic predisposition towards greed. Only the altruistic hivemind can save our civilization.

[Gilrandir]

Eh, why not go by reputable and necessary scientific fields?
A certain number of physics experts, chemists, biologists, behaviorists and other fields.

... on condition they are Nobel Prize winners.

[Husar]

... on condition they are Nobel Prize winners.

So then the noble committee gets to decide who can be elected in which country?
Wouldn't you have to inflate the number of winners the more countries adapt it because otherwise half the countries of the planet have an empty upper/lower house and the rest can only fill the seats for some of the important fields of science?

Besides, some nobel prize winners may be highly specialized, whereas a government function might be better filled by a generalist who has a network of people specialized in various areas who he can consult for advice.
Perhaps being a professor at a public or well-rated private university might be a much better entry barrier.

[Gilrandir]

So then the noble committee gets to decide who can be elected in which country?
Only those winners who have the citizenship of the respective country can run for the parliament of this country.



Wouldn't you have to inflate the number of winners the more countries adapt it because otherwise half the countries of the planet have an empty upper/lower house and the rest can only fill the seats for some of the important fields of science?

No, the countries without Nobel prize winners will be left without the parliament.



Besides, some nobel prize winners may be highly specialized, whereas a government function might be better filled by a generalist who has a network of people specialized in various areas who he can consult for advice.
Perhaps being a professor at a public or well-rated private university might be a much better entry barrier.

Most importantly: I was kidding. :laugh4: The master troll was beaten with his own weapon. ~;)

[Husar]

Most importantly: I was kidding. :laugh4: The master troll was beaten with his own weapon. ~;)

Beaten? I was just exchanging thoughts with you and others.
I'm flattered that you call me a master though. :bow:

[Gilrandir]

Beaten? I was just exchanging thoughts with you and others.


... unaware of being trolled. Losing your grip? :laugh4:

[Husar]

... unaware of being trolled. Losing your grip? :laugh4:

You're probably trying to troll me now, or you use a very different definition of trolling than I do:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling


The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue.

I wasn't pissed off by your comment, so I'm not sure what you're on about if you're not trying to make me angry by repeatedly saying I'm losing something. :shrug:

I'm okay with losing my grip or your "trolling" contest though, how about we go back to the topic now before everyone else leaves?

[Gilrandir]

You're probably trying to troll me now, or you use a very different definition of trolling than I do:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling



I wasn't pissed off by your comment, so I'm not sure what you're on about if you're not trying to make me angry by repeatedly saying I'm losing something. :shrug:

Perhaps I was wrong in using the word. What I meant by your "trolling" is "talking as if seriously but in fact kidding but not letting others feel it is kidding".



I'm okay with losing my grip or your "trolling" contest though, how about we go back to the topic now before everyone else leaves?
They already have.

[Xiahou]

My proposals to save the republic:
Do away with the direct election of senators.
Do away with party identification on ballots and one-button party line voting- if you want to be a party-line hack, you should at least have to go to the trouble of learning their names. If you can't be bothered, then don't vote.

I liked it when we didn't have term limits and presidents had the humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

[Montmorency]

Do away with the direct election of senators.

Speaking of technocracy, a summary of proposals (http://time.com/4585012/technocracy-how-to-fix-government/) from a recent book by Parag Khanna, Technocracy in America, suggests the Senate as a chamber be replaced by an "Assembly of Governors" in which sit the governors of each state - with the twist that each state elect two governors each, one domestic and one to send away to Congress.

I haven't read the book, but it sounds neat.

[a completely inoffensive name]

humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

Teddy tried before him, but failed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My proposals to save the republic:
Do away with the direct election of senators.
Do away with party identification on ballots and one-button party line voting- if you want to be a party-line hack, you should at least have to go to the trouble of learning their names. If you can't be bothered, then don't vote.

I liked it when we didn't have term limits and presidents had the humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

The first 15 amendments were all reasonable. 16 through 18 were a big NOT. Sadly, only one of those has been repealed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The first 15 amendments were all reasonable. 16 through 18 were a big NOT. Sadly, only one of those has been repealed.

Oh come on. 16 is a bad amendment? Before income tax, the primary US tax income was from tariffs and excise taxes.
The introduction of the income tax is what allowed the US to unshackle itself from protectionist economic policy and become the world leader in free trade.

This idea that all of the progressive amendments are all flawed is just lazy right wing philosophy. Both the 16th and 17th Amendments improved the status quo by increasing representation (see my earlier comment about absent senators) and opening up US economic policy.

I am curious about the idea Monty floated from the Technocracy book about a Senate of Governors. I would like to read more about that and see what mechanisms they propose for picking which governor acts in which role.

[Strike For The South]

Technocrats tend to be extremely specialized nerds with no social skills.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My proposals to save the republic:
Do away with the direct election of senators.
Do away with party identification on ballots and one-button party line voting- if you want to be a party-line hack, you should at least have to go to the trouble of learning their names. If you can't be bothered, then don't vote.

I liked it when we didn't have term limits and presidents had the humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

Question - did FDR do a worse job in his Third and Fourth terms?

Would his opponents have done a better job than him?

Was there another Democrat as good as him ready to serve as President?

If the answer to none of those questions is yes - and I think it's generally accepted that he was a great President throughout, that he beat his opponents fairly as the better candidate and that there was no Democrat to stand in his place - then what you are doing is fetishising Washington's Two Terms.

It's by no means clear that Washington only served two terms on grounds of "humility" as opposed to infirmity.

[Xiahou]

Oh come on. 16 is a bad amendment? Before income tax, the primary US tax income was from tariffs and excise taxes.
The introduction of the income tax is what allowed the US to unshackle itself from protectionist economic policy and become the world leader in free trade.It also allowed the federal government to further supplant the state government and allowed for spiraling government spending.


Teddy tried before him, but failed. Even Teddy took a term off before trying to run again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Technocrats" is a term used to represent what is really being sought:

Somebody who will govern/vote/regulate reationally based on technical principles/rules and not be swayed by social interaction, cultural trends, past grievances, etc.

In other words, Vulcans.

Vulcans do not, of course, exist [apologies to those diehard Trekkies who would rather not acknowledge this].

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh come on. 16 is a bad amendment? Before income tax, the primary US tax income was from tariffs and excise taxes.
The introduction of the income tax is what allowed the US to unshackle itself from protectionist economic policy and become the world leader in free trade.

This idea that all of the progressive amendments are all flawed is just lazy right wing philosophy. Both the 16th and 17th Amendments improved the status quo by increasing representation (see my earlier comment about absent senators) and opening up US economic policy.

I am curious about the idea Monty floated from the Technocracy book about a Senate of Governors. I would like to read more about that and see what mechanisms they propose for picking which governor acts in which role.

The deleterious portion of the 16th amendment is that empowerment of Congress to directly levy without apportionment among the States. The apportionment was SUPPOSED to be cumbersome, this limiting the power and scope of the federal government so as to prevent states being superseded. The direct election of Senators was less problematic -- a majority of states were already doing so at the time -- but was, again, a tool for limiting the power and role of the states to influence national policy etc.

Within less than one generation of the ratification, the Great Depression 'mandated' a government response in the form of the New Deal. Congress could enact laws and fund them through the federal levies. The scope and pervasiveness of Government skyrocketed. Even setting aside wartime effects, the federal government has become far more pervasive than it was, taking a role in day-to-day life unheard of before WW1.

Interestingly, the "Great Depression" was LESS of an economic downturn than the recessions of 1865-67, 1873, 1882, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1907, 1913, 1918, 1920, and 1923 (though the last 4 are arguable). Somehow, we got through those without government handling everything.

[Pannonian]

"Technocrats" is a term used to represent what is really being sought:

Somebody who will govern/vote/regulate reationally based on technical principles/rules and not be swayed by social interaction, cultural trends, past grievances, etc.

In other words, Vulcans.

Vulcans do not, of course, exist [apologies to those diehard Trekkies who would rather not acknowledge this].

Experts exist though. And I'm not asking for much. Just for an antithesis of this attitude.

"I think people in this country have had enough of experts."
Michael Gove, cabinet minister in UK government.

Call me an authoritarian, a Tory, or whatever, but I do think that people in their specialist fields probably know better than I do, and it would be a good idea to listen to their advice rather than rely on the adage that my vote is worth as much as theirs. Democracy mitigates against tyranny. It doesn't mitigate against ignorance.

[Montmorency]

It also allowed the federal government to further supplant the state government and allowed for spiraling government spending.

Even Teddy took a term off before trying to run again.

Wouldn't it be better to say that 20th century global monetary reforms allowed for spiraling government spending, because spiraling government spending was no longer the brick around the neck it once was, instead the basic engine of commerce?


The deleterious portion of the 16th amendment is that empowerment of Congress to directly levy without apportionment among the States. The apportionment was SUPPOSED to be cumbersome, this limiting the power and scope of the federal government so as to prevent states being superseded. The direct election of Senators was less problematic -- a majority of states were already doing so at the time -- but was, again, a tool for limiting the power and role of the states to influence national policy etc.

Within less than one generation of the ratification, the Great Depression 'mandated' a government response in the form of the New Deal. Congress could enact laws and fund them through the federal levies. The scope and pervasiveness of Government skyrocketed. Even setting aside wartime effects, the federal government has become far more pervasive than it was, taking a role in day-to-day life unheard of before WW1.

Interestingly, the "Great Depression" was LESS of an economic downturn than the recessions of 1865-67, 1873, 1882, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1907, 1913, 1918, 1920, and 1923 (though the last 4 are arguable). Somehow, we got through those without government handling everything.

Worse? Maybe in the sense that the Punic Wars and the Athenian plague were bigger killers, in proportion, than WW2 or Spanish Influenza.

We got by for thousands of years just fine without antibiotics too, and thousands before without metallurgy or agriculture. :shrug:

I don't take state (vs. federal) supremacy as a good in itself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Question - did FDR do a worse job in his Third and Fourth terms?
In his third, his performance as an executive was not notably impaired. His 4th term, barely three months long, was in some ways a disaster. Yalta saw Stalin take the rest of the Allies to the cleaners with little pushback from FDR. FDR was too tired and sick to think past the end of the war. CHF would claim him within a few weeks of the conferences end. AND he didn't even inform his #2, despite of his condition, about the development of a city killer weapon.


Would his opponents have done a better job than him?.
Dewey was a solid leader and would have handled the office creditably -- and a good note more skeptically in terms of coping with the USSR. Enough to really have changed post-war Europe? Difficult to say.


Was there another Democrat as good as him ready to serve as President?.
Hard to say. Rayburn had the brains and skill, but preferred the legislature. Wallace had the ego, drive, and brains, but not the support of the party. That's how Truman got picked.

While I have always appreciated Washington's tradition of two terms and out, a key element of the tradition was it's voluntary character. I wish term limits were not needed -- but that would require more voters who gave a rat's patoot. I would still prefer no limits unless they were imposed by voters making their choice. Washington opted out because he deeply believed in the concept of Cinncinatus -- that the executive should serve, complete, and then step down from power. He was also, in all likelihood, sick of politics at that point. That is likely NOT true of many of the subsequent office holders.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I don't take state (vs. federal) supremacy as a good in itself.

Whereas I prefer political decision making to be handled at the lowest practicable level and wherever possible by the people most directly affected and/or being forced to fund it.

[Pannonian]

In his third, his performance as an executive was not notably impaired. His 4th term, barely three months long, was in some ways a disaster. Yalta saw Stalin take the rest of the Allies to the cleaners with little pushback from FDR. FDR was too tired and sick to think past the end of the war. CHF would claim him within a few weeks of the conferences end. AND he didn't even inform his #2, despite of his condition, about the development of a city killer weapon.

Dewey was a solid leader and would have handled the office creditably -- and a good note more skeptically in terms of coping with the USSR. Enough to really have changed post-war Europe? Difficult to say.

Hard to say. Rayburn had the brains and skill, but preferred the legislature. Wallace had the ego, drive, and brains, but not the support of the party. That's how Truman got picked.

While I have always appreciated Washington's tradition of two terms and out, a key element of the tradition was it's voluntary character. I wish term limits were not needed -- but that would require more voters who gave a rat's patoot. I would still prefer no limits unless they were imposed by voters making their choice. Washington opted out because he deeply believed in the concept of Cinncinatus -- that the executive should serve, complete, and then step down from power. He was also, in all likelihood, sick of politics at that point. That is likely NOT true of many of the subsequent office holders.

From what I've read, I strongly doubt if anyone else would have opposed Stalin any more effectively than Roosevelt did. To do that, the US would have had to take Britain's advice, and probably had to shore up Britain's imperial position as well in order to strengthen this anti-Communist ally. Everything I've read points to a determination not to do this. The US weren't going to fight for the benefit of the British and their empire. If that was going to be the case, then either the US takes up the slack as it did, with the accompanying costs. Or the USSR takes over more of the world than it did. Roosevelt was already as Anglophilic as any US president was going to get.

[Beskar]

Lack of Term Limits is the playground of dictators.

[Montmorency]

Whereas I prefer political decision making to be handled at the lowest practicable level and wherever possible by the people most directly affected and/or being forced to fund it.

What about a dumbbell distribution between county/municipal and federal levels?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What about a dumbbell distribution between county/municipal and federal levels?

Not impossible given my theme. I freely acknowledge that certain issues -- international relations, national defense for example -- mandate a federal level of control. In general, voters are somewhat less ignorant about those local too them and slightly more willing to toss out incumbents. These are healthy things in a republic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From what I've read, I strongly doubt if anyone else would have opposed Stalin any more effectively than Roosevelt did. To do that, the US would have had to take Britain's advice, and probably had to shore up Britain's imperial position as well in order to strengthen this anti-Communist ally. Everything I've read points to a determination not to do this. The US weren't going to fight for the benefit of the British and their empire. If that was going to be the case, then either the US takes up the slack as it did, with the accompanying costs. Or the USSR takes over more of the world than it did. Roosevelt was already as Anglophilic as any US president was going to get.

That is certainly possible, as Stalin was nothing if not determined. Nor was Dewey particularly inclined towards England, though he was much less anti-Empire than some GOP -- backing up Churchill would have been more likely than with the failing FDR, but maybe not likely enough to do notably better at Yalta. But numerous folks in the US government at the time thought Yalta was a bad deal and that, at a minimum, we should have been constantly pushing Stalin to actually live up to the deal that was signed. He did not, as you well know.

It is also true that the Russian attack in Manchuria had a notable effect upon the Japanese and their willingness to end the conflict -- yet even in February of 1945 all of the Allies knew that the war was, essentially, won and that the rest was follow through. Our strategy should have been to push the Soviets to live up to the deal and, absent a Soviet attack on Japan (which Stalin would have withheld), then simply blockade Japan and let it wither.

[Pannonian]

That is certainly possible, as Stalin was nothing if not determined. Nor was Dewey particularly inclined towards England, though he was much less anti-Empire than some GOP -- backing up Churchill would have been more likely than with the failing FDR, but maybe not likely enough to do notably better at Yalta. But numerous folks in the US government at the time thought Yalta was a bad deal and that, at a minimum, we should have been constantly pushing Stalin to actually live up to the deal that was signed. He did not, as you well know.

It is also true that the Russian attack in Manchuria had a notable effect upon the Japanese and their willingness to end the conflict -- yet even in February of 1945 all of the Allies knew that the war was, essentially, won and that the rest was follow through. Our strategy should have been to push the Soviets to live up to the deal and, absent a Soviet attack on Japan (which Stalin would have withheld), then simply blockade Japan and let it wither.

Even Churchill recognised that, on the European front, Yalta wasn't going to change things beyond the margins (hence the infamous signed note). Any changes to the OTL needed to have happened before the push into eastern Europe, and even Marshall, by some distance the most Anglophilic of the US chiefs of staff, wasn't going to countenance further diversion from the NW European front. Which would have been a substantial betrayal of Allied promises to Stalin of course. In fact, if we look beyond the political environment (which was only discussed in Churchill's note), Stalin kept his promises to the Allies rather more than vice versa. Any efforts to hold Stalin to his promises wouldn't have washed; in the most concrete arguments of all, he was already keeping his promises far more than Churchill and Roosevelt had. In order to change things from the OTL, the Allies needed to break even more promises (which was what Churchill was urging on Roosevelt).

Also, I doubt if a blockade of Japan would have been politically feasible. Japan was why the US entered the war. The European front was a byproduct. A negotiated peace with Germany might have been tolerated by the American public. Japan had to be punished.

[Montmorency]

Not impossible given my theme. I freely acknowledge that certain issues -- international relations, national defense for example -- mandate a federal level of control. In general, voters are somewhat less ignorant about those local too them and slightly more willing to toss out incumbents. These are healthy things in a republic.

But reference to foreign affairs is kind of a deflection. Hasn't one of the most robust functions of federal government been to provide citizens a recourse 'over the heads' of local and state government?


That is certainly possible, as Stalin was nothing if not determined. Nor was Dewey particularly inclined towards England, though he was much less anti-Empire than some GOP -- backing up Churchill would have been more likely than with the failing FDR, but maybe not likely enough to do notably better at Yalta. But numerous folks in the US government at the time thought Yalta was a bad deal and that, at a minimum, we should have been constantly pushing Stalin to actually live up to the deal that was signed. He did not, as you well know.

It is also true that the Russian attack in Manchuria had a notable effect upon the Japanese and their willingness to end the conflict -- yet even in February of 1945 all of the Allies knew that the war was, essentially, won and that the rest was follow through. Our strategy should have been to push the Soviets to live up to the deal and, absent a Soviet attack on Japan (which Stalin would have withheld), then simply blockade Japan and let it wither.

While the Allies could eventually have bombed or starved Japan into submission (killing millions), I think the point of taking Japan quickly was to reduce overall costs, demonstrate the power of nukes to Stalin, and most importantly prevent Japan from falling under the Soviet thumb.

A Communist Pacific would have been more damaging to American interests than anything arising out of Yalta.

[Gilrandir]

A Communist Pacific would have been more damaging to American interests than anything arising out of Yalta.

And yet America had (and still has) a communist pacific - China.

[Montmorency]

And yet America had (and still has) a communist pacific - China.

No, not yet.

[HopAlongBunny]

No, not yet.

To me it looks very close without some major policy shift.
The failure of TPP without any alternative option, appears to open a rather large door for China.
Not today, not tomorrow but...
Thinking long-term is not the present administrations strength.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And yet America had (and still has) a communist pacific - China.

Not quite. China will, I suspect, become the power in the Western Pacific...but it will not really be a communist state when it does so. The innovation, industry, etc. needed to project power that far cannot be based on the old system. It will be another regulated capitalist state when its power in the region peaks.

[Montmorency]

Not quite. China will, I suspect, become the power in the Western Pacific...but it will not really be a communist state when it does so. The innovation, industry, etc. needed to project power that far cannot be based on the old system. It will be another regulated capitalist state when its power in the region peaks.

China is as capitalist as it's going to get, along with the rest of the BRICS, who to varying extents have defined a practice of "state/hybrid capitalism" (https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/03/why-the-china-model-isnt-going-away/274237/) that on inspection looks troublingly like old fascist economic principles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism).

And, well, we all know what to call Putin (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/01/23/putins-russia-a-moderate-fascist-state/) around here, but perhaps Xi Jinping (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/opinion/xi-jinpings-dilemma.html) and Narendra Modi (https://intpolicydigest.org/2014/11/21/narendra-modi-fascist-or-leader-of-the-world-largest-democracy/) are consolidating power and focusing national rhetoric toward a similar mode in their respective countries.

And whaddaya know, between Erdogan in the west and Duterte in the east, how swell that China and India are picking this auspicious moment to ignite a border spat...

...

Gotta love border spats.

[Gilrandir]

Not quite. China will, I suspect, become the power in the Western Pacific...but it will not really be a communist state when it does so. The innovation, industry, etc. needed to project power that far cannot be based on the old system. It will be another regulated capitalist state when its power in the region peaks.


China is as capitalist as it's going to get



Whatever may lay in wait for China, it IS a Communist state. Look at the everlasting ruling party, the ideology it is steered by, political liberties in check, internet control...

[HopAlongBunny]

Capitalist...depends what you mean by that.
The U.S.S.R was certainly capitalist; capital was the primary mode of production. Its' failure to overcome the alienation of labour through a wage relationship is arguably one reason it did not succeed.
That nonsense aside, China will probably expand much like the U.S.: low-cost loans for development=>spurring exports of capital goods=>deepening imports of resources.
Nothing in that process requires democracy, in fact some governments prefer China's willingness to ignore social issues.
Somewhat dated, but this brief look at policy in Africa sketches the outline:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-africa

Although, it does show that security and social issues can effect the cost of resources and need to be addressed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

nvm. You are correct and I am wrong. Adios.

[Montmorency]

~:confused:

[Montmorency]

A very interesting blog (https://impeachableoffenses.net/) by some law professor devoted to legal and constitutional details and arguments surrounding any and all cases out there for the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Latest post is entitled "A due process challenge (almost certainly fruitless) to the Arpaio pardon". It discusses a legal challenge just put forward against the Joe Arpaio pardon on the argument that, holding that courts must not be hindered in maintaining by such means as prosecuting contempt their authority and proper activities, an executive pardon in supervenience of a ruling against contempt is actually in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause.

I guess that's a Constitutional rationalization of the complaint that "Trump's pardon undermines rule of law".

The blog author, from his perspective as a legal scholar, discusses the merits of the case (despite thinking it's not a viable one).


I’m sympathetic to the sentiment. Indeed, it is precisely because the Arpaio pardon is so corrosive of the constitutional order that I’ve argued that it is an impeachable offense. Nonetheless, trying to invalidate the pardon itself is a non-starter.


Lots of constitutional language is vague or necessarily subject to interpretation in light of unforeseeable events. The pardon clause is not of that sort. Article II, Section 2 says that the president, “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” That is as plain and unequivocal as any sentence the framers ever wrote. The framers could have written exceptions or qualifications into the constitution’s absolute grant of presidential authority. They could have made pardons subject to review by the Supreme Court. Or to override by Congress. Or something else. They didn’t. In short, the constitution made the president’s pardon power absolute, with one single exception – matters subject to impeachment.

The Protect Democracy authors contend that the plain scope of the pardon power in the original constitution is somehow limited by the later-enacted provisions of the Bill of Rights, specifically the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due of process of law. But just because the Bill of Rights was enacted after the original constitution doesn’t make it a warrant for rewriting any portion of the original constitution that one now finds inconvenient.

Let’s consider the argument for a due process limitation on presidential pardon power:

To begin, because the constitution is America’s fundamental law, in constitutional disputes of this sort, the contestants are necessarily confined to certain forms of argument.

First, one can argue from the text, particularly where the text is ambigous or open-ended. (Textualism.) But the Article II text defining the presidents’s pardon power is clear and unequivocal. And the due process clause says nothing whatever about pardons.

Second, one can argue from a combination of textual and extra-textual sources that the framers intended something not obvious from the text. (Originalism.) Here the argument would have to be that the authors or ratifiers of the 5th Amendment due process clause intended it to modify the unequivocal pardon language of Article II. There is no evidence whatever for this position. Indeed, there is not the faintest hint of a suggestion that anyone in the founding generation ever even thought about the pardon power in connection with the due process clause.

Third, one can argue that, while a particular problem now at issue was not contemplated by the framers because technology or physical conditions or social arrangements have changed in ways they could not have anticipated, had they been able to anticipate modern conditions, they would have wanted the constitutional language to cover the problem. (A more elastic originalism.) A classic example is the judicial expansion of the 4th Amendment, which speaks of searching “houses, papers and effects,” to cover electronic communications 18th century politicians could not have envisioned. But in this case, Mr. Trump’s pardon of Arpaio is hardly something the framers could not have anticipated. Many of them were practicing lawyers. They understood courts, injunctions, and the power of courts to enforce their own orders. Had they wanted to carve out an exception to the pardon power for criminal contempt convictions, they could plainly have done so in Article II. They didn’t. And there is no hint that those who enacted the due process clause only a few years later (most of them the same people) had any other view of the question.

Moreover, and this seems to me key, the framers did anticipate that a president might abuse the pardon power, and they provided a remedy: impeachment. As I discussed in my last post, no less a figure than James Madison made that express point at the Virginia ratifying convention.

Fourth, one can disavow any interest in the intentions of the framers and treat the language of the constitution as a mere framework for an evolving set of rules, norms, and governing principles. But even the most elastic living constitutionalist cannot (or at least should not) completely ignore what the constitution itself says. The language of Article II, Section 2 is unequivocal. To use the vague concept of “due process” to negate the plain meaning of another section of the constitution requires a far more powerful argument than the good folks at Protect Democracy muster.

For example, they assert that if a president were to announce that “he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.” This is, frankly, remarkably sloppy stuff. In the first place, merely announcing an intention to behave in a racially discriminatory way does not violate the 14th Amendment. Moreover, even if the president were to act on his stated intention and begin issuing pardons only to white defendants, that might violate the spirit of the equal protection clause, but that would not invalidate the white pardons. Nor is it plausible to suggest that a court would order the president to start issuing pardons to similarly situated black persons.

Or consider an analogous hypothetical – assume a president announced that he intended to nominate only white cabinet members, and then did so. Would that be outrageous? Sure. Would that violate the equal protection clause? No. Because the president’s power of nomination is plenary and not governed by legal rules. And even if one could construct some contorted argument that the 14th Amendment was violated, what would be the remedy? Does anyone seriously imagine that courts could order the president to withdraw nominations of the white cabinet officers, or order the president to substitute black ones?

In each of these hypotheticals, the president would be exercising, however deplorably, an undoubted constitutional power. And in each case, there would be no constitutional mechanism to reverse the exercise of that power in the particular case. There would be other constitutional remedies — but they are political and rest primarily with the public and Congress and not the courts. In the second case, Congress could refuse to confirm all or some of an avowedly racist slate of nominees. In both cases, if the president were in his first term, an outraged public could refuse to re-elect him. Or Congress could impeach him immediately.

A due process based judicial review of presidential pardons would have to be consistent with the checks-and-balances structure written into the constitution we have. It is not. The pardon power was designed in large measure as an executive check on judicial excesses. It would hardly make sense to give the judiciary a check on that check. And I can’t imagine how a court could fashion an appropriate standard of review of the pardon decision that wouldn’t give courts the final word on a question expressly, unqualifiedly, reserved to the president.

The real meat of Protect Democracy’s argument is that the due process clause must be read to provide a judicial remedy for every improper executive action. That is not so. The constitution gives the judiciary the power to effect case-specific remedies for some executive improprieties, but not all. Sometimes the constitution provides no remedy except political ones.

The Arpaio pardon is scandalous. But it will stand. Judges have no power to overturn it. Nonetheless, Congress has the power to remove — to impeach — the man who awarded it.

Nice blog anyway.