How do we get rid of this stupid U.S. Constitution anyway?

[Lago PARANOIA]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Prob ... nstitution

Some highlights:

A. Splitting off the Commander-In-Chief/Head Diplomat role from the President
B. Proportional representation
C. Abolishment of the U.S. Senate

You can see my contributions there as Dr. Swordopolis.

But anyway, while I was going over this thing, one thing that occurred to me is that the U.S. Constitution would be impossible to retire short of armed revolution. There is a provision for abolishing it and putting up a new one, but it's hard as fuck.

Can anyone think of a better path? At this point I would seriously rather have the hodgepodge pile of documents that passes for the U.K. Constitution than the current one in the United States.

[Username17]

No way. The UK parliament rammed through special legislation that made being caught on film during the London riots retroactively a crime that they could put you in jail for without a jury trial. That is bullshit. But it was also legal in the UK, because their common law + subjecthood crap is bullshit. The US constitution is the best electoral system of the 18th century. That makes it old, outdated, and desperately in need of a change. But I still wouldn't trade it for the second best electoral system of the 18th century.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Your mileage may vary. I personally think that in these modern times that a system with a hard-ceiling on how non-shitty it can get is straight-up better than a system without a ceiling but also a worse underlying structure.

Also there are a huge number of non-stupid assholes (but still assholes) in the U.S. who will, for example, correctly identify and sympathize with the viewpoint that the idea of states having powers separate from the federal government is an anachronism that was unfortunately forced onto us because the Constitution was drafted before the formal advent of nationalism. And then when you say that we should get rid of the idea of fucking states, which necessitates getting rid of the U.S. Constitution, people freak the fuck out and ask why you hate America.

Omission bias and all. I am strongly starting to think that omission bias is the biggest threat to human happiness and morals. Doctrine of Double Effect my pock-marked, hairy ass.

[Username17]

This one has bothered me for pretty much ever.

A. Splitting off the Commander-In-Chief/Head Diplomat role from the President

What the hell would you want to do that for? Lots of countries have a ceremonial head of state with a separate head of the government. But why the fucking fuckitty fuck would anyone think that was a good idea?

The guy who is in charge of the country in emergency situations is the head diplomat. You might have some other person that foreigners nominally have to act like they are negotiating with, but they are still actually negotiating with the guy who can order a bombing run on their country. The Queen of England may shake hands with foreign dignitaries and be on money and shit, but that's all farce and charade. The person whose opinion actually matters is James Cameron, because he's the fucker who actually drafts and signs these agreements. Having the Prime Minister not be the head of state is a fucking insult to every single other country that comes and talks to them.

And that goes double for the President of India. You do not need a fucking national bird who shows up and pretends to have absolute power over the country while actually deferring in all matters to the Prime Minister who in turn defers in all matters to the head of his party. That is crap. The person who is the head of your country should be the person who actually calls the shots.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

I meant the Commander-in-Chief should be the chief diplomat. As in, the Head of State is not the person who commands the military or makes treaties. The Head of State (which would be the defanged U.S. President) would still have veto power and be responsible for running the federal bureaucracy. This would necessitate moving the Secretary of State and Defense over to the CiC's office, of course.

If you have a problem with the terminology then you could make the actual Head of State still called the President - but then make a Chief Executive office who does vetoes and appoints department heads and issues pardons and appoints circuit justices and shit. But the powers shouldn't reside in the same person.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

The Queen of England may shake hands with foreign dignitaries and be on money and shit, but that's all farce and charade. The person whose opinion actually matters is James Cameron, because he's the fucker who actually drafts and signs these agreements.
-Username17

Honestly, I would rather have a random film director as our current Head of Government. David is a total arsehole.

Also you're not wrong about the hilarious awfulness of our 'constitution'. The only thing which is absolutely unconstitutional here is a law that 'limits the actions of future parliaments' - and even that was gleefully disregarded by the Coalition.

I've written before on this forum about the obsolescence of the US Consitution - but it is a damned sight better than not having any constitution at all.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Fair enough. Comment on the U.K. constitution withdrawn.

[hyzmarca]

Also there are a huge number of non-stupid assholes (but still assholes) in the U.S. who will, for example, correctly identify and sympathize with the viewpoint that the idea of states having powers separate from the federal government is an anachronism that was unfortunately forced onto us because the Constitution was drafted before the formal advent of nationalism. And then when you say that we should get rid of the idea of fucking states, which necessitates getting rid of the U.S. Constitution, people freak the fuck out and ask why you hate America.

But, getting rid of States is completely at odds with the idea of increasing voter participation. The entire point of having a tiered government is that smaller units are more responsive.

There is a reason why federations are popular. It's fucking hard to rule a large country from a central location. The central government just doesn't have to cater to every bumfuck dinkhole little town and should spend the vast majority of its time dealing with huge sweeping issues. You need a lower government to take up the slack and deal with everything that isn't important on a national level.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't believe that for an instant, hyzmarca, because Americans are much more likely to know the President than they are the leader of the House of Representatives than they are their own Representative than they are their State Congress Representative. People may or may not know their mayor more than their State Congressman. I dunno. Moreover people are more likely to vote in more visible and national elections than more local ones. State elections just do not have as many participating voters as national ones; city-wide ones have fewer ones still.

The current setup is much too complicated. Just from a basic voter participation perspective it should be city (optional) -> district -> Congress. And the city should only be considered because a lot of cities are too big to fit in a district of nationally proportionate representation and may grow outside (or shrink) their boundaries in the future. That'd help government visibility and participation much more than our current setup. I mean right now I like in Travis County, Texas, and I need to know the identities and powers of over ten people. That's too fucking much.

... and this is before we even get into issues like, oh, voter representation. If the state setup gets an F on voter participation, the voter representation is the equivalent of taking a diarrhea dump on the Secretary of Education and calling him a sissy boy communist.


But anyway, if I had my druthers I'd pretty much arrange it like Frank did a few threads back. The U.S. Senate would be directly elected by voters; that is, you vote for a party that has at least as many qualified people in it as to whatever size you make the U.S. Senate. Probably 200-300 people to accommodate previously-bullshit parties like the Reform, Green, or Libertarian Parties. But anyway, the percentage by which a party gets votes in this election is the number of seats someone gets.

The U.S. House of Representatives would work pretty much like it does right now. However since there are no such thing as governors anymore because there aren't any fucking states as we used to know them, the Representative serves as governor. You can have district (or state, which is probably what they will be called to presere the narratie) representatives that function as they do right now. The districts are unicameral and arranged like the U.S. Senate in terms of vote proportions. Yes, this means that House Representatives work more than twice as hard as House Senators. Deal with it.

[Swordslinger]

The constitution was written in a time when people traveled by horse. Taking into account internet technologies, you could write a way better form of government that involves the people to a greater degree.

[PoliteNewb]

When your car is a piece of shit that runs poorly, the first thought should be to repair it...not blow it up and try to build a new car out of spare parts.

Calling for a constitutional convention to review and alter the constitution is perfectly reasonable. Abolishing and starting from scratch would be crazy.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Calling for a constitutional convention to review and alter the constitution is perfectly reasonable. Abolishing and starting from scratch would be crazy.

That would be a nice idea if it were not for the fact that the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids decreasing state representation. And considering that the U.S. Senate and the very existence of states are easily the two biggest problems facing the United States today, there's no way of fixing this short of scrapping the Constitution either covertly or overtly. I mean I guess we could do some clever trillion dollar platinum coin crap and make the U.S. Senate the new House of Lords (only less powerful) through some clever wording, but that's never going to fly.

Aside from that there are a whole fuckton of other problems with the U.S. Constitution that need fixing. These problems don't need the Constitution to be torn down to fix because we have Amendments, but guess which fucking entities would be preventing us from initiating most of these fixes?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Prob ... nstitution

Anyway, read the above link. There's like well over 30 Amendments that need to be passed and I can only see like a handful of them getting approved in this current climate. And that's just the ones we were able to come up with during a drunken night. There's probably way more crap that needs fixing. I mean, we still have the motherfucking electoral college. Fuck.

[Gx1080]

No offense, but the idea that "if only the honly Federal-level Goverment existed and bringed regulation to everybody, people would be happy" is retarded. It's retarded when Frank says it and is retarded when you say it Lago.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There's absolutely nothing sacred about the existence of states or federal government for that matter. They're clearly a construct of pre-French Revolution political theory when 'state' was a synonym for 'country'.

What I am saying is that:

A.) Government should not have so many layers to it that it loses visibility and accountability. The average turnout and voter knowledge for state elections is much lower than for national elections even though common sense says that the opposite should be happen.

B.) At the same time, government should not have so few layers that the bureaucracy becomes unwieldly; having stuff like local minimum wage laws are a good idea.

So the question is, does the U.S. have problem 'A' or problem 'B' right now? In my opinion, it's problem A. Right now, someone can, for example, in Texas vote for a mayor, Governor, State Rep, a State Senator, two state Supreme Court Justices, a House of Representatives member, two Senators, and a President. Not to mention even more local crap like a District Attorney. That is way too many fucking offices. The fact that big city elections only have like a 20% turnout shows that even though it's ideal for voters to pick every member of the bureaucracy they're already being overwhelmed with choice.


Now, while this is a huge problem in my opinion it still pales before the simple fact that the mere existence of a U.S. State is complete and utter bullshit. They're not based on the principle of one person/one vote and right now 15% of the U.S. population could theoretically have a majority in the Senate. Which needn't be a problem if not for the fact that states can't be redrawn just for the purpose of ensuring one person/one vote.

That's why the U.S. Constitution needs to go. If it weren't for the states crap everything else would be theoretically fixable. But it's not. The entire thing is based on the ancient and discredited idea that Rhode Island and Connecticut are sacred entities that exist independently of their people. It's an artifact of its time. I have no idea why people are so attached to 18th century political science that they're willing to fuck over themselves and their children just so they can wave a Made-in-China flag. Probably poor genetic material.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The constitution was written in a time when people traveled by horse. Taking into account internet technologies, you could write a way better form of government that involves the people to a greater degree.

Oh, definitely. Recalls and referendums at all levels of government should be a basic voting right.

However, you do need to institute a limit of how much voter participation is needed to run the system from day-to-day. If you go beyond peoples' awareness thresholds you either risk having the system fall prey factions and special interests (if you don't have mandatory voting), risk having a lot of ignorant votes cast (if you do have mandatory voting), and in either case end up politicizing several offices.

If it becomes necessary for someone or some process outside of citizen election or decision making to answer to the people they should put pressure on Congress and/or the Executive Branch. I'd much rather have a petition of 500,000 people telling Congress to fire Alan Greenspan and appoint a new one than have people vote for the Federal Reserve Chairman directly. I mean, can you even imagine?

[Chamomile]

If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson himself was opposed to giving the states such a disproportionate level of representation compared to their actual populations, but he needed to get all or at least most of them to sign the Constitution if he wanted it to mean anything, so he eventually caved in. I'm pretty sure if someone could get the propaganda machine going, the fight to have the Constitution restored to what the founders originally wanted it to be before the meddling of those sinister Rhode Islanders wouldn't be that hard.

The rest of the proposed changes present more of a challenge.

[Koumei]

Seeing how things (don't) get done in America, it kind of looks like you either want one of these two things:

1. You elect a dictator every 4 years or whatever, and they make all decisions. Fuck Congress. You just vote in the guy who you think/hope will make decisions you like, and you then hope he doesn't turn around and reveal himself to be Hitler 2.0

Ant would do pretty well in this role, on everything except "dealing with other countries".

2. You don't all sort of vote on who is in Congress and then they vote based on who bribes them the best. Instead, any issue above arbitrary importance X (presumably via some "How much noise are people making over it?" scale) has the people vote on it directly. Like a referendum but with concrete results rather than just being "Hmm, it looks like the people would prefer X. In that case we should push for X so a- oh wait, sorry, here's a huge stack of money from corporation Y."

[Zinegata]

Lago, no system of government will ever be perfect. You really need to think very carefully before proposing changes; and do note that the US Constitution has been amended many times before.

Moreover, I have to say that one of the essay's complaints - that there is no single body controlling foreign policy - is a preposterous argument. Foreign policies are formulated via concensus; and the reason it fails often has as much to do with the negotiating partner as it does with the US government.

[Neeeek]

If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson himself was opposed to giving the states such a disproportionate level of representation compared to their actual populations, but he needed to get all or at least most of them to sign the Constitution if he wanted it to mean anything, so he eventually caved in. I'm pretty sure if someone could get the propaganda machine going, the fight to have the Constitution restored to what the founders originally wanted it to be before the meddling of those sinister Rhode Islanders wouldn't be that hard.

The rest of the proposed changes present more of a challenge.

Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. They sent him to France for the entire time they were writing it because they didn't want him there.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1. You elect a dictator every 4 years or whatever, and they make all decisions. Fuck Congress. You just vote in the guy who you think/hope will make decisions you like, and you then hope he doesn't turn around and reveal himself to be Hitler 2.0

George W. Bush.

Lago, no system of government will ever be perfect. You really need to think very carefully before proposing changes; and do note that the US Constitution has been amended many times before.

The underlying structure of the U.S. Constitution is outdated and rotten because of the 'states' issue. If for nothing else that needs to be changed it needs to be that. Unfortunately the entire idea of a state is the backbone of the U.S. Constitution so it can't have any meaningful fixes without scrapping the whole thing.

And as long as we're living in fantasyland, why not use the opportunity to make some other fixes and clean up some of the clunkier language like the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment?

Moreover, I have to say that one of the essay's complaints - that there is no single body controlling foreign policy - is a preposterous argument. Foreign policies are formulated via concensus; and the reason it fails often has as much to do with the negotiating partner as it does with the US government.

Despite what the Constitution implies, most foreign policy in the U.S. is done and set via the President. Not to say that Congress is entirely divorced from the matter (they can set broad policy goals and cockblock anything that they don't like the executive branch doing) since they do have the power to create treaties, it's just that for the most part the President does everything. If you're saying that the executive branch (or any other small minority of persons) shouldn't have virtually free-reign to set foreign policy I can understand, but that's not how things work and I don't see how it can work.

Now that said, I do agree with the broad thrust that the person who handles foreign policy should not be the same person as the one who handles domestic policy. The fact that we can say that Carter or Hoover rawked at foreign policy but sucked at domestic policy or that LBJ rawked at domestic policy but sucked at foreign policy at all shows that we could use some separation. But as Frank mentioned this person actually needs to have some power. Hence why I suggested giving this area of policy (along with some others, like a de-nationalized CIA) entirely to the Commander-in-Chief while leaving domestic policy to the Chief Executive.

[Gx1080]

Carter didn't had the balls neccesary for foreign policy:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35

[Akula]

Carter didn't had the balls neccesary for foreign policy:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php ... LOCK_ID=35

I don't think you can accuse Carter of a lack of balls. I doubt you would work inside a nuclear reactor.

And the article you quote must have been written by a lunatic. This:

The most expensive armed forces in history were just dying to make those bearded bastards pay, and Carter sat back and tried talking to them nicely. We could have done things that would make our name feared throughout history. We could have made them forget Genghis Khan, who was responsible for turning Eastern Iran into the moonscape it still is today.

I used to lie in my room after the news, dreaming of what the USAF could do if Carter took the leash off. Like: announce that we were going to nuke Khomeini's "holy city," Qum, if the hostages weren't released. And do it. Then announce we were going to nuke another, bigger city-and do it. And keep doing it, going from smaller to bigger Iranian cities until Tehran was the only one left. Then, if the idiots didn't let the hostages go, sadly announce that all the hostages were brutally butchered, and seal Tehran underneath hot, radioactive glass.

Is literally insane.

[Zinegata]

Lago, no system of government will ever be perfect. You really need to think very carefully before proposing changes; and do note that the US Constitution has been amended many times before.

The underlying structure of the U.S. Constitution is outdated and rotten because of the 'states' issue. If for nothing else that needs to be changed it needs to be that. Unfortunately the entire idea of a state is the backbone of the U.S. Constitution so it can't have any meaningful fixes without scrapping the whole thing.

And as long as we're living in fantasyland, why not use the opportunity to make some other fixes and clean up some of the clunkier language like the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment?

Every country has to divide itself into smaller chunks of land for purposes of governance. The Philippines has regions and provinces. France has Departments. The Brits have counties.

I do agree that the current electoral college is a bit wonky, and that Congressional representation is rapidly becoming a farce due to redistricting. But you can probably fix that by amendments and reforms. Note that Senators used to be elected by state legislatures and not by populat vote.

Despite what the Constitution implies, most foreign policy in the U.S. is done and set via the President. Not to say that Congress is entirely divorced from the matter (they can set broad policy goals and cockblock anything that they don't like the executive branch doing) since they do have the power to create treaties, it's just that for the most part the President does everything. If you're saying that the executive branch (or any other small minority of persons) shouldn't have virtually free-reign to set foreign policy I can understand, but that's not how things work and I don't see how it can work.

Now that said, I do agree with the broad thrust that the person who handles foreign policy should not be the same person as the one who handles domestic policy. The fact that we can say that Carter or Hoover rawked at foreign policy but sucked at domestic policy or that LBJ rawked at domestic policy but sucked at foreign policy at all shows that we could use some separation. But as Frank mentioned this person actually needs to have some power. Hence why I suggested giving this area of policy (along with some others, like a de-nationalized CIA) entirely to the Commander-in-Chief while leaving domestic policy to the Chief Executive.

Eh, the problem with having a seperate guy to handle domestic policy and foreign policy is that the two are often intertwined. The reason why the US intervened in Gulf War 1 wasn't purely because of "foreign policy" - it's because the domestic market would be affected by price hikes in oil.

Moreover, I'd like to note that having a seperate branch doing domestic policy, another seperate branch doing foreign policy, and another one doing the military policy tends to result in the three branches not talking to each other. It's stuff like this that led to bad things like World War 1.

There is no real ideal way of doing it. If I were to offer a criticism of the current system, it's that the different branches aren't actually talking enough so you have a jumbled mess of contradictory policies.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Every country has to divide itself into smaller chunks of land for purposes of governance. The Philippines has regions and provinces. France has Departments. The Brits have counties.

No argument here, that's why the country still needs to be divided into (population-proportional) districts. You can have levels of government that is between district and Congress but I strongly suspect that the current populace isn't educated or attentive enough to be able to give more than three levels of government awareness their concern.

Regardless, no matter how you divide up the country A.) when it comes to representation in the federal government they need to be based on population and B.) they need to answer more strongly to the federal government than they currently do.

Our idea of 'state' and the founding fathers' definition of 'state' are not the same thing. Back then, state was more like 'distinct country' than the 'district' of today. Seriously, the Bill of Rights wasn't even supposed to apply to states even after the drafting of the current U.S. Constitution -- and didn't appreciably well into the 20th century.

Not surprising, because the United States was created before the French Revolution and this was a clear holdover. We have a presentist view of states because we've been steeped in the ideas of nationalism for well over two hundred years. If you view the U.S. Constitution as a coalition between 13 different nation-states (like they actually viewed themselves) instead of 13 different fragmented regions of a more-or-less homogenous British territory that reunited again during that brief period between the American Revolution and the birth of the United States of America (which is the biased presentist view) it makes a lot more sense.

I do agree that the current electoral college is a bit wonky, and that Congressional representation is rapidly becoming a farce due to redistricting. But you can probably fix that by amendments and reforms. Note that Senators used to be elected by state legislatures and not by populat vote.

States cannot have their representation reduced in the Senate and states cannot be changed in size or jurisdiction by the federal government. Except for Texas, but that's another story. No matter what kind of piecemeal fixes you implement, you're stuck with the broken Senate body whose very existence is a punch in the throat to the idea of republicanism. There is no way to get around that with the current U.S. Constitution.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Moreover, I'd like to note that having a seperate branch doing domestic policy, another seperate branch doing foreign policy, and another one doing the military policy tends to result in the three branches not talking to each other. It's stuff like this that led to bad things like World War 1.

Of course having all such things in the same branch gives us crap like the Sedition Acts, Japanese-American internment, the Bay of Pigs, Cambodian Bombings, the Iran-Contra scandal, and so-on.

I think that naked power grabs by the executive branch are a much more pressing matter than lack of coordination. Yes, domestic policy does drive foreign policy, but in the 21st century we've also seen foreign policy being increasingly used as a justification for some very questionable domestic shit. After Obama threatening to veto internment of American citizens by military tribunals not because it's a naked power grab but because it doesn't give him enough power I think that there needs to be a hard Constitutional brake on the impetus for a President trying to grab power.