American Constitution

[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?

[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?