Org Mobile Site
Thread: American Constitution
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
for riches do not endure forever, and a crown is not secure for all generations.
the worry here is not Kim, but trump
Originally Posted by 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
No, I don't think so.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
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.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
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. 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.
The only question is, what will that look like? Will we start enumerating "republics" like France?
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
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.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?
If you are suggesting your system is reaching systemic collapse then we are all in deep doodoo.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
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). 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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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. 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.
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.
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?
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?
Mod - can we get this split off into a separate discussion on the American Constitution, please?
Originally Posted by 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?
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.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?
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.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
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. Mod - can we get this split off into a separate discussion on the American Constitution, please?
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".
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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".
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
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. 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.
Would you think it appropriate to re-institute property restrictions?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.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?
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.One can't force voters to be more mindful of facts.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
... 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....... One can't force voters to be more mindful of facts.
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.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.
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?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.
I have nothing to say except Pannonian's conception of technocracy is wildly off if he thinks China is anywhere close to it.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
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.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?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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 levelOur 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.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level
Yep...that too.And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
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.And some states didnt have senators for months or even years due to gridlock and corruption at the state level
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!)
With any luck this will continue until apart from offensive tweets he is the most hamstrung President in history (finally a first!)
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.
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=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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
From the point of view of the Founders, I think they would prefer two chambers competing to in effect a fully-unicameral chamber. 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.
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).
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
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.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).
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
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...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.
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. The current incumbent has a bachelor of science in animal science.
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. The current incumbent has a bachelor of science in animal science.
No one has sold the argument that someone with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering is preferable than someone with a law degree.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO