Yet Another School Shooting in the United States

[Flagg]

Man, living in a city that suffered a school shooting last year (Marysville Pilchuck Highschool), it gutted the whole town. I mean the national news coverage stopped and the reporters left, but it's like an open wound slowly scabbing over, but the school colors are everywhere to show support for the poor kids who lived it. But there's still a pall over everything. And it's just so fucking sad. And having only lived here for 9 & 1/2 years and not being an active member of the community... I hate to say it, but it's almost a relief not to know any members of the families or thier close friends.

Just figured I'd add that rather than go off on guns to maybe give another perspective.

[K. A. Pital]

The US has rewritten its constitution 33 times so far. Who said no democratic nation ever rewrites its constitution? Please provide a quote unless you've decided to start tossing out strawmen along with those false dilemmas.

Has it fully or almost fully rewritten it like many other nations did, or is it relying on court interpretations of the original amendments on this particular issue? I think the latter.

[Channel72]

The US has never rewritten it's Constitution. It's edited/amended it, of course.

Sadly, FDR's attempt to add in a "2nd Bill of Rights" - which would have steered the country in a very socialist direction, guaranteeing things like housing, healthcare, etc. as a basic right - was not to be. I still pass countless homeless people on the way to work every day, but at least I have the right to shoot them if they get too rowdy.

[gizmojumpjet]

Kapital appears to be trying to substitute the word "rewritten" with "replaced." I still wonder at the relevance of the question, but I will accept his refusal to provide a quote as requested as his concession that no one has in fact argued that no democratic nation ever rewrites its constitution.

[K. A. Pital]

I used "rewrite" from the start. Usually amending and editing is not rewriting, at least in the stories of other nations' constitutions.

I should have used replace, true enough. And this idea is not attributable to any poster here, but is something that I often heard from fans of hardcore legalism.

[Patroklos]

The US has rewritten its constitution 33 times so far. Who said no democratic nation ever rewrites its constitution? Please provide a quote unless you've decided to start tossing out strawmen along with those false dilemmas.

Has it fully or almost fully rewritten it like many other nations did, or is it relying on court interpretations of the original amendments on this particular issue? I think the latter.

Why should we humor you and your irreverent forced choice? The only relevant fact is whether the Constitution can be changed from small adjustments to down right replacement via a legal organic democratic process. The answer is yes. The fact that the US hasn't gone for wholesale replacement is irrelevant, they have demonstrated over and over again that they can and will change it as they see fit. Take your BS elsewhere.

Do you know what other nations that fully "replaced" their Constitution? Hint, they are not all in Western Europe and I doubt you would be happy with most of the outcomes. The idea that a change in the foundational legal compacts underpinning a nation is automatically good is stupid on a staggering scale.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of precedental right. I was and am not convinced in the slightest that this concept is superior to the alternatives - or is a virtue in and of itself.

I do not maintain that it is superior to all alternatives.

It is vastly superior to some alternatives, such as letting the authorities (or a group of self-appointed ideologues) redefine or ignore the citizens' rights on a whim.

I mean, you yourself gave the example of the Soviet constitution under Stalin. It was a good constitution- but it was entirely ignored and bore no resemblance to the actual situation with respect to human rights in Stalin's USSR. Because the constitution was not, in practice, binding upon the Stalinist authorities. There was no penalty for ignoring it... so they ignored it whenever it suited them. And it usually suited them most to ignore it while tyrannizing their own citizens.

Which is exactly why allowing people to cherrypick which parts of a constitution they want to pay attention to, without using a legitimate democratic process to change the constitution first, is a bad idea.

Yes, I think the left should be more aggressive in their criticism of the constitution, and they should point out that there is a vast number of nations with exceptional social well-being record which do not base their law on the US constitution OR Anglo-Saxon precedental right system in general.

What the US needs is MORE rights constitutionally enshrined, not less. And MORE penalties for violating constitutional principles, not fewer penalties.

Our constitution should establish rights to things like privacy, bodily autonomy, freedom from persecution over gender and sexuality, a right to some minimal standard of shelter and basic care (i.e. a right to be not dead), and so on. All those things belong in there, and it is a shame and a crime that they are not.

But we will not GET those things established as legal rights in America by removing other rights our citizens now enjoy. And we will certainly not get those things established as legal right by deciding to ignore the rights we already have. Doing so will not work to the advantage of the poor, the exploited, or the vulnerable. It will work to the advantage of the elite, the exploiters, and the powerful.

Saying that you care about something written two centuries ago, kind of like religious fanatics care about the Bible, Quran or other holy writ, only makes you vulnerable to the opposing side's argument that you admit gun ownership and gun carry are inalienable rights. It is a dead end, basically. You lost the argument at the start.

I care about the American constitution not because it is old, but because it is the core operating system of American democracy. It is literally the only one we have. If rights it establishes are ignored, what assurance do we have that only the 'stupid' rights will be taken away?

The Second Amendment is not the only one that powerful interest groups in America would like to repeal. There are groups quite a lot more powerful who are already doing their best to make sure America ignores parts of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, the Thirteenth for all practical purposes if they can get away with it, the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and the Twenty-Sixth, also if they can get away with it.

And while the Second Amendment may seem like a pointless excrescence to you, the others I just listed are NOT. Many of them establish rights that are the only reason America isn't far, far more of a horrible regressive hell-hole than is already the case.

So I believe in holding a very firm line opposing "ignore constitutional rights because they're inconvenient or arguably detrimental to a policy goal." And this has nothing to do with the US's constitution as such. It is also true of the (unwritten) British constitution, of the constitutions of every other state of which I am aware. Once a right is established, it should be defended and legally honored, until and unless fully democratic and legal processes are enacted to remove it.

This is as true of the right to guns as it is of the right to food, shelter, and medicine.

Because only by enforcing all rights do we have any surety that we can enforce the many, many rights which must be enforced to maintain a civilized society.

How can you argue a system of gun controls like in Europe would be consistent with the US constitutional provisions, knowing that most likely it will not be? This leave you in the surrender trap unless you criticize the constitution itself, thus focusing on its possible amendment and change.

If the American population wants to amend its constitutional provisions on gun rights, fine. If they don't, fine. I don't particularly care.

So long as these constitutional provisions stay what they are, then US gun laws must be consistent with the Second Amendment.

Just as (in the US) the court system MUST be in compliance with the Fourth through Eighth Amendments. Just as laws regulating speech and freedom of assembly MUST be consistent with the First Amendment. Just as the government MUST observe and honor equality under the law for all citizens according to the Fourteenth Amendment.

That is literally the whole point of having a written constitution- to establish the basic rights of the people and the basic structure of the government. To protect the rule of law. To prevent an arbitrary, lawless 'government' from becoming a tyranny.

Once again: constitutions of dictatorships often contain the same text as the modern democratic constitution does. They are just not being followed. There is no need for amendments because, had the text actually been followed, the place would likely not be a dictatorship in the first place. Changing the constitution has nothing to do with dictatorship, and it is perfectly possible to estalish a real tyranny with only tiny, superficial changes to core legal documents like constitution. You have not refuted this point. Many dictatorships arose in nations with the most modern constitutions granted from on high - and it did zero good.

Yes, and this is exactly why constitutions should be followed. Even when it is theoretically undesirable to do so. Because once you concede that the people in power can ignore 'stupid' parts of the constitution, your protection against tyranny is very weak.

You say that the only document outlining citizen rights in the US is the constitution. That is pretty much hideous in and of itself. How can it be that such an important thing is limited by such a narrow document? This itself should put the whole legal system of the US under scrutiny.

...Not that a system which produces ridiculous outcomes when people rot in jail for smoking a bit of pot, but are not subjected to the slightest scrutiny when it comes to their gun rights, isn't simply sick at the core and should have been subjected to scrutiny a long time ago.

The problem is simple- the US has not added any particularly significant rights to its citizenry since 1920, except for the right to not have to pay a tax or pass a special test in order to vote.

This is a bad thing, and obviously, after a century of time, it is time that some rights be added. A right to privacy, to basic sustenance, to make various harmless lifestyle choices,

At the moment, insofar as these things are politically accepted as rights in the US, they actually fall under an 'omnibus' provision contained in the Ninth Amendment: that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But many rights that are covered under the Ninth (e.g. privacy) have been grossly undermined in the past half-century, and need to be formally protected.

It would also be desirable to restructure certain parts of the US government- but how to do that properly, at this moment, I do not know nor do I care to comment.

Many nations had several rewrites to their constitution, the constitution could be replaced with a 50-year cycle, which often takes into account newer legal phenomena, new rights concepts et cetera. It does not mean the end of history, some grand mistake or something. When the amendments become very numerous and more important political concepts than the original body of text, one seriously wonders if it warrants a full replacement. But of course, anathema.

I have no problem with the idea of rewriting or amending a constitution in part or in whole.

The point is that this has to be done by legitimate means. It cannot be done by one group arbitrarily deciding that specific bits of the constitution no longer matter. And when constitutions are rewritten, the people doing the rewrite should be very reluctant to remove rights the population previously enjoyed. That sets a very bad precedent.

And forgive me for stating my opinion on the US political climate. It is childish, unproductive and every so-called constitutional debate leads to stalemate and irrelevance. Sorry for stating the unwelcome truth that the US legal and political system by now is so rotten and corrupt at the same time that it's likely beyond repair

This is quite possibly true, and I have no objection to you saying it.

The US is already a superdictatorship of the global age, Ersatz-British Empire.

Unfortunately, no constitution governing the structure of government or the domestic affairs of a nation can prevent it from becoming imperialist. Republics have conquered empires many times in history.

All this constitution talk does not prevent routine infringement on rights that are considered normal in, say, Europe. And without any constitutional provisions for these rights! Some of them are provided by recent laws or even a whole body of laws. But it does not make these rights less important or easier to take away.

This is precisely the problem- but the solution is to ADD legal rights to the constitution, not to remove them.

And forgive me for thinking that the right to an 8-hour working day and a cap on the maximum working time for full-time workers are more important rights than the right to a goddamn handgun!

That is currently covered under the Ninth Amendment- for which I thank the Anti-Federalists for raising a stink and Madison for being sensible enough to listen to them.

Nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted to say that workers have a right to work no more than an eight-hour day or a forty-hour week. The US's constitution explicitly says that such a right may exist.

Unfortunately, it does not say such a right does exist, and I wish it did say so. I would happily support an amendment to that effect.

Listen to yourself. You think that I care whether the working time regulations are set by a small law in no way equal to the constitution? Or maybe I care far more about the maintenance of theae rights by a government that actually matters, and therefore I have to be constantly politically active to ensure the legal body changes in the direction I want it to change, as opposed to resting on some fake laurels because something just made its way into the constitution X years ago and it is now nigh impossible to change?

I am entirely amenable to this. Anyone who wants to change the constitution in any way is welcome- no, encouraged- to give it their best shot as far as I am concerned.

But if the citizens have a right according to the existing constitution, then until such time as that right is removed from the constitution, the right should be enforced.

The question you should ask is not "why do you enforce gun rights while ignoring the right to food and shelter." The question you should ask is "why do you not enforce the right to food and shelter as hard as you enforce gun rights?" EVERY right should be enforced and honored that forcefully! It should ALWAYS cause resistance when people try to take away a basic right citizens should have! And any attempt to take away any such right, except under the most truly desperate of circumstances, should be avoided if at all possible!

Which makes it the height of foolishness for someone like you or me, who wants people to have more rights, to suddenly turn around and try to take a right away because we personally do not see the use of it.

[Starglider]

Simon, I generally agree with you, but I would appreciate it if you would distinguish rights from entitlements. Rights are explicit confirmations that you can do certain things, i.e. neither the government, individuals or co-operations may legally prevent you from doing those things, or explicit prohibitions against other people doing negative things to you. Rights define the range of permissable actions in a way that aims to prevent people being harmed, oppressed or taken advantage of. Entitlements are fundamentally different in that they impose an obligation that other people must take certain actions for your benefit. Rather than general restrictions on the set of actions a citizen may undertake legally, they are coerceive and specific, but usually focused onto voluntary government workers with a diffused secondary obligation (taxation) across the rest of the population. I am aware that ´right´ has a positive connotation in American politics whereas ´entitlement´ has a negative connotation, despite most of the population receiving them in some form, but it is still a category error to insist that everything you want the government to do (or indeed, if you are on the far left, everything you want from life in general) is a ´right´.

As for Stas, as long as he continues to promote campaigns of mass confiscation, relocation, imprisonment and nationalisation, and as long as he is always ready to dismiss and discard elections when they don´t produce a sufficiently communist outcome, his professed preference for democracy over tryanny is a fig leaf. Democracy will not let him force all humanity into the party-run barracks, to emerge only to go to their party-provided jobs and consume party-approved entertainment in perfect equality of misery.

[K. A. Pital]

I couldn't care less if US citizens keep killing themselves with firearms because they handle them as irresponsibly as children, Starglider. I'm not in the US and I am not planning to spend my life there. You keep missing the target. I do indeed prefer democracy over tryanny, but what you - the cry-nanny of oligarchs - propose isn't much of a democracy anyway.

The point is that this has to be done by legitimate means. It cannot be done by one group arbitrarily deciding that specific bits of the constitution no longer matter. And when constitutions are rewritten, the people doing the rewrite should be very reluctant to remove rights the population previously enjoyed. That sets a very bad precedent.

Not sure I ever argued against doing full or partial rewrites by legitimate means and with due process. Why not? Moreover, my core point is that an idea should be evaluated on its own, not because it is or is not a part of the constutition. If the constitution forbids separation of church and state or enshrines a state religion, why and how removing this is a bad thing? It's not.

[Patroklos]

An idea should be evaluated by whatever means the any particular citizen wants. NOT what you insist it must be. That's the whole point of rule through consent. You know, like in a democracy...

[Jub]

The US has rewritten its constitution 33 times so far. Who said no democratic nation ever rewrites its constitution? Please provide a quote unless you've decided to start tossing out strawmen along with those false dilemmas.

Amendments aren't equal to tearing the document down, cutting the fat, and rewriting it with modern legal terminology, notes about how the law should be interpreted, and cases of president that helped shape the new document. We can't ask the founding fathers why they wrote a law the way they did, or if they'd have changed it in different circumstances, but with a new living document it would be easy to do. If you think of the current US constitution it's like running an old 70's muscle car at the track today. Sure it has some modern aftermarket parts, maybe even an entirely new drive train, but it still can't beat a modern track car.

[Patroklos]

So what? Where again is this requirement for radical revisions coming from again? Can you prove it provides for exclusively positive outcomes? How about even mostly positive outcomes?

Again, if it hasn't changed much its because most people don't want it to change. There are plenty of reasons why this might be, but in the modern era one of the greatest is that with zealots like you and Kapital running around nobody can predict what would happen. I value stability over say opening a constitutional convention over one pet issue and having your lot run roughshod over my entire way of life. And that works from all directions, right left or center.

In the end despite all the piss and vinegar you are full of you can't reconcile that you have to have large and dedicated majorities to accomplish what you want. That you have to convince people to follow you rather that dictating it. Democracy is a wrench in your despotic bicycle wheel. The Constitution is the way it is because of a functioning democracy, not because there is no democracy.

Your analogy is wrong btw. Its not like taking the car out on the track, its like taking it on a ride down the strip. Your slightly modern Volkswagon Cabrio doesn't have shit on my slightly weathered but purring 65 Shelby GT350. As long as it can turn heads it measures success by votes (ie consent) and survives. Your series of shitty modern European compacts might get you there for a short time but their value is measured by how often you drop it for the next crappy model after it shits out on you. Maybe you should ask yourselves why you are so bad at writing constitutions that you have to do it all the time. You would think most would have opted for the premium freedom of speech package by now but you never learn. It saves you money in the long run! Special discount, and 0% financing for two years!

[Purple]

So essentially you fear change and you'd rather keep something that barely works because that's what you are used to as opposed to trying to change it because you fear you might break things? Did I understand it right?

[Jub]

So what? Where again is this requirement for radical revisions coming from again? Can you prove it provides for exclusively positive outcomes? How about even mostly positive outcomes?

Again, if it hasn't changed much its because most people don't want it to change. There are plenty of reasons why this might be, but in the modern era one of the greatest is that with zealots like you and Kapital running around nobody can predict what would happen. I value stability over say opening a constitutional convention over one pet issue and having your lot run roughshod over my entire way of life. And that works from all directions, right left or center.

In the end despite all the piss and vinegar you are full of you can't reconcile that you have to have large and dedicated majorities to accomplish what you want. That you have to convince people to follow you rather that dictating it. Democracy is a wrench in your despotic bicycle wheel. The Constitution is the way it is because of a functioning democracy, not because there is no democracy.

Your analogy is wrong btw. Its not like taking the car out on the track, its like taking it on a ride down the strip. Your slightly modern Volkswagon Cabrio doesn't have shit on my slightly weathered but purring 65 Shelby GT350. As long as it can turn heads it measures success by votes (ie consent) and survives. Your series of shitty modern European compacts might get you there for a short time but their value is measured by how often you drop it for the next crappy model after it shits out on you. Maybe you should ask yourselves why you are so bad at writing constitutions that you have to do it all the time. You would think most would have opted for the premium freedom of speech package by now but you never learn. It saves you money in the long run! Special discount, and 0% financing for two years!

If Europe is doing as poorly as you claim why is most of Western Europe doing significantly better than the United States in most metrics? Also, can you point to a case where a European nation's constitution has actually failed as opposed to being updated to be more in line with the current views of society?

Just because the US feels that changing the constitution should be a major thing doesn't mean that it's the best thing and the success of European nations means that looking at their systems should be warranted.

[Patroklos]

So essentially you fear change and you'd rather keep something that barely works because that's what you are used to as opposed to trying to change it because you fear you might break things? Did I understand it right?

Nice weasel words. Do you fear stability? I don't like the wrong change, there are plenty of good changes I want as measured by yours truely. Unlike some in this thread however, I am realistic about how likely I am to get what I want or to end up with what I don't.

Note this is in reference to a constitutional convention where there is considerable debate on whether you can limit the scope of such an event. An amendment does not have this issue. Guess amendments the left pushed on gun control when they controlled both houses and the presidency. Or on anything for that matter. Same goes for the right. Hell, the Republicans have a lock on most of the state legislatures so they probably have a better chance overall. However, they didn't try either. Do you know why? Democracy.

If Europe is doing as poorly as you claim why is most of Western Europe doing significantly better than the United States in most metrics?

Are they now... Good luck proving that. They are better in a good many things thats for sure, but the lack in a good many things too. Good luch proving it one way of the other.

Also, can you point to a case where a European nation's constitution has actually failed as opposed to being updated to be more in line with the current views of society?

Jesus, where to start? How about The Wiemar Republic...

How is Greece doing these days?

Also who said anything about Europe? I know YOU probably want to restrict it to that because of erroneous assumptions about history but your assumptions regarding changing the constitutions of a nation should hold everywhere at all times. For all types of governments actually.

Just because the US feels that changing the constitution should be a major thing doesn't mean that it's the best thing and the success of European nations means that looking at their systems should be warranted.

Who said it was the best thing? You and Kapital are the only one saying one way must be good in all circumstances for all nations. The question was why the US hasn't changed its Constitution as much as others. The answer is because they don't want too and since they live in a functioning democracy that means it hasn't been. The fact that some other nations chose another course is irreverent to the question as well as the outcomes you attribute to it with zero evidence.

[Patroklos]

DP.

[Jub]

Are they now... Good luck proving that. They are better in a good many things thats for sure, but the lack in a good many things too. Good luch proving it one way of the other.

What does Europe lack? You brought it up, so please enlighten me on what Europe lacks that America has.

Jesus, where to start? How about The Wiemar Republic...

Not exactly a modern example, can you do better?

How is Greece doing these days?

And they've failed entirely due to their constitution and the way it was written? That's also not really Western Europe as most would define it.

Who said it was the best thing? You and Kapital are the only one saying one way must be good in all circumstances for all nations. The question was why the US hasn't changed its Constitution as much as others. The answer is because they don't want too and since they live in a functioning democracy that means it hasn't been. The fact that some other nations chose another course is irreverent to the question as well as the outcomes you attribute to it with zero evidence.

Yeah, the US is doing great at the whole democracy thing, what with an awful two-party system, rampant gerrymandering, the need for an electoral college, out of control spending by super PACs, corporate personhood, Gitmo, executive strikes... Just a paragon of the democratic process.

[Patroklos]

What does Europe lack? You brought it up, so please enlighten me on what Europe lacks that America has.

Military power. Tech industry prowess relative to GDP and population. Patent numbers in pretty much everything., R&D in general. Top worldwide universities. Freedom of speech. They are behind on PPP. The list goes on and on. And you could make a corresponding list of things Europe is great at relative to the US.

But before you continue your dick measuring contest you might want to consider the magnitude of the difference between Europe and the US and then the rest of the world.

Not exactly a modern example, can you do better?

How is it not modern? And no, it serves perfectly fine.

And they've failed entirely due to their constitution and the way it was written? That's also not really Western Europe as most would define it.

1.) Who said anything about failing entirely? Oh yeah, only you when you realized a goal post needed moving when you realized the weakness of your ridiculous position. All I said is that constitutional modifications can't be assumed to be beneficial in all circumstances at all times, and a lack of them is not a good metric to measure a "good" constitution against a "bad" one regardless of your bent.

2.) Why the hell do we need to restrict this to Western Europe? We should we?

Yeah, the US is doing great at the whole democracy thing, what with an awful two-party system, rampant gerrymandering, the need for an electoral college, out of control spending by super PACs, corporate personhood, Gitmo, executive strikes... Just a paragon of the democratic process.

We have our issues, but then so does everyone. So your claim now is that the US isn't a democracy? Thats rich coming from someone who thinks people exercising their democratic prerogative to modify their Constitution as they see fit are somehow flawed by following their will instead of yours.

[Jub]

Military power.

Yes, because ever nation should spend ~34% of the entire world's military budget and engage in wars for the flimsiest of reasons...

Tech industry prowess relative to GDP and population.

How does this help the United States when companies like GE don't pay taxes? Source?

Patent numbers in pretty much everything.

That's mostly a function of population size compared to other nations, not a sign that the US is actually the best at anything. Also, how does this aid the average American? Also source?

Freedom of speech.

Are you seriously implying that the US is alone in allowing free speech?

They are behind on PPP.

Source?

But before you continue your dick measuring contest you might want to consider the magnitude of the difference between Europe and the US and then the rest of the world.

Would you rather I compare the US to a third world nation so you can feel better about your lack of social safety net and crumbling infrastructure?

How is it not modern? And no, it serves perfectly fine.

Given that the Republic crumbled before the rise of the idea of the national identity was fully formed I'd say that it wasn't a modern nation. Add to that the fact that it only toppled due to the harsh treatment Germany received after WWII and it's a terrible example.

1.) Why said anything about failing entirely? Oh yeah, only you when you realized a goal post needed moving when you realized the weakness of your ridiculous position. All I said is that constitutional modifications can't be assumed to be beneficial in all circumstances at all times, and a lack of them is not a good metric to measure a "good" constitution against a "bad" one regardless of your bent.

Need I point out what I said:

Also, can you point to a case where a European nation's constitution has actually failed

My question was about a nation failing before changing their constitution. It was in response to you comparing European nations to cars that break down every few years.

2.) Why the hell do we need to restrict this to Western Europe? We should we?

How about because that's the only source of 1st world nations with the same background as the United States... Would you be happier if I compared the US to Somalia, Saudi Arabia, or Russia instead?

We have our issues, but then so does everyone. So your claim now is that the US isn't a democracy?

Ah yes, the US a democracy that actively tries to stop minorities and the poor from voting, elected a president on the back of a fraudulent recount, and who discusses a plurality of important issues behind closed doors in secret meetings...

Thats rich coming from someone who things people exercising their democratic prerogative to modify their Constitution as they see fit are somehow flawed by following their will instead of yours.

Are you implying that nations which change their constitution are less democratic than the United States?

[Patroklos]

Mindless irrelevancies as you backtrack in a desperate attempt to not look stupid. Blah Blah Blah.

You asked, you were provided. Did you honestly not know the PPP is higher int he US? Like, Seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Knock yourself out, you will note there are only three of the smallest European nations on that list higher than the use. Do the math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... t_spending

There is R&D, an even bleaker story for Europe if you use your infantile dick measuring first past the post BS.

I think that's good enough to show your objections are just desperate ass covering...

Would you rather I compare the US to a third world nation so you can feel better about your lack of social safety net and crumbling infrastructure?

I don't think you have the faculties to understand why this response was the worst one you could have posted in response to my statement.

Given that the Republic crumbled before the rise of the idea of the national identity was fully formed I'd say that it wasn't a modern nation. Add to that the fact that it only toppled due to the harsh treatment Germany received after WWII and it's a terrible example.

Wait. You think Germany had no national identity prior to the Wiemar Republic? Seriously, you need to stop.

Also, can you point to a case where a European nation's constitution has actually failed

Who gives a shit about what you said, nobody claimed one had failed in the first place so why would they bother showing you that?

My question was about a nation failing before changing their constitution. It was in response to you comparing European nations to cars that break down every few years.

That was sarcastic Jub. It was an equally ridiculous comparison to highlight the stupidity of the first.

How about because that's the only source of 1st world nations with the same background as the United States... Would you be happier if I compared the US to Somalia, Saudi Arabia, or Russia instead?

Do constitutions and their equivalent only exist in 1st world nations? Western Europe? Who the fuck cares if they have a similar background as the US? The question is about the fundamental theories regarding a nation's basis for civil government. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a democracy for these purposes.

Ah yes, the US a democracy that actively tries to stop minorities and the poor from voting, elected a president on the back of a fraudulent recount, and who discusses a plurality of important issues behind closed doors in secret meetings...

Ah, a truther....

Are you implying that nations which change their constitution are less democratic than the United States?

That would be the exact opposite of what I said. It doesn't matter if they change it every day or never. What matters is that if they wanted to they could, when they wanted to they did, and if they didn't want to they were not forced to do so or had it done for them.

That would be both the US and Europe for the most part in the last century or so. They are all democratic. One might ask why one has to change their constitution or equivalent if it was already democratic, but making a constitution more or less democratic isn't the only reason to do so. Likewise one might ask how a constitution or equivalent could be democratic if it never changes, but that presupposes the original ideas are no longer relevant. That is dumb. A unqualified change is just that, unqualified relevant to any measure and that doesn't change whether you have one or one thousand of them.

[Jub]

Wait. You think Germany had no national identity prior to the Wiemar Republic? Seriously, you need to stop.

They didn't, at least not in the way we do today. We're talking about a point in time where the transition from monarchies to more modern forms of government was just starting to take off. Less than 100 years ago Germany was still the German Empire with monarchs ruling over individual Kingdoms and Dutchies. Even at the fall of the Weimar Republic a significant plurality of modern nations had yet to be formed. WWII really solidified the idea of nationalism and loyalty to a nation instead of a monarch on the world stage.

That was sarcastic Jub. It was an equally ridiculous comparison to highlight the stupidity of the first.

*rolls eyes* Yet you accuse me of back pedalling...

Do constitutions and their equivalent only exist in 1st world nations? Western Europe? Who the fuck cares if they have a similar background as the US? The question is about the fundamental theories regarding a nation's basis for civil government. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a democracy for these purposes.

The level of wealth and education does, in fact, need to be taken into account when looking at how the constitution affects things. If you're struggling just to feed yourself or too uneducated to read a picture book, it's hard to care what's happening at the level of the central government. The US is obviously not a struggling 3rd world state trying to make the transition into a modern economy so it gets held to a higher standard and at that level the constitution starts to factor in.

Ah, a truther....

Do you actually have a rebuttal to my points?

That would be both the US and Europe for the most part in the last century or so. They are all democratic. One might ask why one has to change their constitution or equivalent if it was already democratic, but making a constitution more or less democratic isn't the only reason to do so. Likewise one might ask how a constitution or equivalent could be democratic if it never changes, but that presupposes the original ideas are no longer relevant. That is dumb. A unqualified change is just that, unqualified relevant to any measure and that doesn't change whether you have one or one thousand of them.

How is it democratic to require a 2/3rds majority to change the constitution? If 50%+1 want it their rights and voices of the majority are being trampled. The fact that the US, under current law, is unable to change the constitution without a majority +17% is the opposite of democratic. Add to this the possibility of a president winning an election without the majority vote in a two party system and the democratic nature of the US needs to be called into question.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, I generally agree with you, but I would appreciate it if you would distinguish rights from entitlements...

While there is a difference, the difference becomes blurry when we talk about modern societies that really are quite capable of ensuring (for instance) that no one starves or dies for lack of basic medical care.

I mean, the people who wrote the American constitution talked about the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when they started their revolution 11 years earlier. Life is fairly significant on that list, and in an industrialized society where keeping people alive on a basic level is so easy, you can make a case that every citizen has a reasonable expectation that society will commit some minimum level of resources to making sure they don't die. Just as they have a reasonable expectation that society will provide them with a fair trial.

So I'm quite prepared to embrace social-democratic definitions of 'rights' that include a variety of economic rights, some of which you might prefer to call entitlements.

I am aware that ´right´ has a positive connotation in American politics whereas ´entitlement´ has a negative connotation, despite most of the population receiving them in some form, but it is still a category error to insist that everything you want the government to do (or indeed, if you are on the far left, everything you want from life in general) is a ´right´.

Well, I want the government to do plenty of things I don't have a 'right' to- for example, farmers have no 'right' to the support of the Department of Agriculture, but I want such a department to exist.

However, there are certain things that it is simply barbaric and cruel for a society to force on its citizens, when that society is as productive as modern developed nations are. And I'd argue that people have as much of a 'right' to not be forced into such conditions as they have a 'right' to not be punished by drawing and quartering if they're convicted of a crime.

Not sure I ever argued against doing full or partial rewrites by legitimate means and with due process. Why not? Moreover, my core point is that an idea should be evaluated on its own, not because it is or is not a part of the constutition. If the constitution forbids separation of church and state or enshrines a state religion, why and how removing this is a bad thing? It's not.

One should certain evaluate all ideas regardless of whether they're part of an existing constitution or not.

However, one should also recognize that constitutions override normal laws and regulation. And that they place real, significant limits on the conduct of governments. Limits which are not and should not be lightly overridden or lightly ignored just because one political faction thinks they're obsolete.

There's a difference between 'worshipping the law' and respecting the rule of law.

How is it democratic to require a 2/3rds majority to change the constitution? If 50%+1 want it their rights and voices of the majority are being trampled. The fact that the US, under current law, is unable to change the constitution without a majority +17% is the opposite of democratic. Add to this the possibility of a president winning an election without the majority vote in a two party system and the democratic nature of the US needs to be called into question.

The structure of the government should be harder to change than the details of legislation, if you want a functioning democracy.

The reason for this is simple- it makes it impossible for a temporary majority to implement a radical change in the rules, so as to place itself permanently in power.

If you want an example of why it's a bad idea to allow short-term majorities to make decisions with permanent consequences for the structure of democracy in their society, look no further than (ew) American politics! State legislatures routinely exploit a weird combination of census timing and conflict-of-interest-laden rules about who gets to draw the boundaries of jurisdictions for federal elections within a single state. By doing so they tend to lock in permanent, near-100% majorities for their own party in the state they represent.

When something like this happens, it may not matter that only 53% of the state legislature is of the X party... they are able to create a situation that results in them being granted influence far out of proportion to that 53-47 advantage in their favor.

Having a federal government doing the same to the basic rights of citizens is not a good idea, either. At best, this results in there being a lot of chaotic flux (say, one party establishes that gays have the right to equal treatment with straights, then the other repeals it, then the first party passes it again, and so on).

At worst, it gives cynical and malevolent people an easy way to become very powerful by creatively editing the rules of the political game, to secure themselves a win.

[Jub]

The structure of the government should be harder to change than the details of legislation, if you want a functioning democracy.

The reason for this is simple- it makes it impossible for a temporary majority to implement a radical change in the rules, so as to place itself permanently in power.

If you want an example of why it's a bad idea to allow short-term majorities to make decisions with permanent consequences for the structure of democracy in their society, look no further than (ew) American politics! State legislatures routinely exploit a weird combination of census timing and conflict-of-interest-laden rules about who gets to draw the boundaries of jurisdictions for federal elections within a single state. By doing so they tend to lock in permanent, near-100% majorities for their own party in the state they represent.

When something like this happens, it may not matter that only 53% of the state legislature is of the X party... they are able to create a situation that results in them being granted influence far out of proportion to that 53-47 advantage in their favor.

Having a federal government doing the same to the basic rights of citizens is not a good idea, either. At best, this results in there being a lot of chaotic flux (say, one party establishes that gays have the right to equal treatment with straights, then the other repeals it, then the first party passes it again, and so on).

At worst, it gives cynical and malevolent people an easy way to become very powerful by creatively editing the rules of the political game, to secure themselves a win.

This issue can be resolved with some major reforms. The first of which should be to adopt the Australian system which includes compulsory voting, with full-preferential instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the House of Representatives, and the use of group-ticket, single-transferable proportional voting to elect the upper house, the Senate. Combine that with reviewing the way districts are drawn up, removing the electoral college, and allowing overseas citizens to vote. That way any majority would be a legitimate majority without the issues you've presented.

Now before you say this is impossible look at the nation already doing this and take note of how much more democratic their system is.

[Kingmaker]

50% + 1 of the population votes to execute people with detached earlobes and enslave anyone who objects.

Jubian democracy in action, folks.

[Jub]

50% + 1 of the population votes to execute people with detached earlobes and enslave anyone who objects.

Jubian democracy in action, folks.

Yes, because that is a thing that could ever garner 50% + 1 of a popular vote in a system where 95%+ of people voted. If such a vote would pass by even that margin the nation that voted for it is fucked anyway.