The structure of the Federal government and the elections does not make it feasible for a third party. You would need a Constitutional amendment in order to force newly elected Presidents to form a coalition government. This would likely influence some of the party power balance in Congress in a positive way, creating some lines of communication between parties even if it is only an uneasy truce.
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
It may not be perfect, but given the examples I've seen of "better nations", I'll take the Constitution, thankyouverymuch.
Nice strawman. They didn't say to get rid of the Consititution, just be open to taking advantage of its most powerful and important mechanism for ensuring it stands the test of time: adding amendments. Until the 13th amendment abolished slavery these amendments were pretty rare (2 in 74 years), but considering the Constitution was new that isn't surprising. The next 106 years saw 14 new amendments, or about 1 every 7.5 years. As of July 2021 we would have had one amendment in 50 years, and it was a very minor one that only affects Congressional pay increases.
We have many problems in our country which should be being solved by Constitutional amendments. Instead of having to rely on judges making obvious interpretations of civil rights laws from the early 20th century we should be writing our own new civil rights laws into the Constitution. But we have become too partisan to do that.
This is exactly it. During the last X decades where candidates released their tax returns at least 3 months before vote date, if we wanted this to become a standing thing that all candidates MUST do, we SHOULD have made it a constitutional amendment. Then it is no longer subject to the whims of each candidate. But we are now making the republicans die on this hill that they shouldn't want that due to Trump, despite it being good for everyone if this were the ca
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
Equally funny (frustrating?), are those that "worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it", but sure do love to quote Amendments.
That is stupid. The amendents ARE part of the Constitution. They are in there because 2/3 of each house of Congress,and 3/4 of the States, approved them. IF you manage to come up with a proposal that meets that criteria the Constitution will again be altered. But it shouldn't be IGNORED just because some so called progressive think it should be changed.
Who said anything about progressive? I'm just talking about the people that act like the Constitution is something that can never be changed, but also cite the very amendments that changed it.
Who says is can't be changed? I know a lot of people who say certain things WON'T be changed, because there is not enough support, but I haven't heard anyone say it CAN'T be changed.
You're off-topic, we're talking recent history. As in changes that occurred in the 20th and 21st century. Much of what was possible in the 19th century is no longer possible under current elections regulation, State laws, and House and Senate rules.
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
As long as it is altered via the amendment process as defined in the Constitution, that's fine. It's when lawmakers and judges choose to ignore the Constitution, magically redefine what words mean or just "wink, wink" things that conservatives object.
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do?
-- Raoul Duke
green (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:green (Score:2, Interesting)
The structure of the Federal government and the elections does not make it feasible for a third party. You would need a Constitutional amendment in order to force newly elected Presidents to form a coalition government. This would likely influence some of the party power balance in Congress in a positive way, creating some lines of communication between parties even if it is only an uneasy truce.
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
Re:green (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
It may not be perfect, but given the examples I've seen of "better nations", I'll take the Constitution, thankyouverymuch.
Re:green (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be perfect, but given the examples I've seen of "better nations", I'll take the Constitution, thankyouverymuch.
Nice strawman. They didn't say to get rid of the Consititution, just be open to taking advantage of its most powerful and important mechanism for ensuring it stands the test of time: adding amendments. Until the 13th amendment abolished slavery these amendments were pretty rare (2 in 74 years), but considering the Constitution was new that isn't surprising. The next 106 years saw 14 new amendments, or about 1 every 7.5 years. As of July 2021 we would have had one amendment in 50 years, and it was a very minor one that only affects Congressional pay increases.
We have many problems in our country which should be being solved by Constitutional amendments. Instead of having to rely on judges making obvious interpretations of civil rights laws from the early 20th century we should be writing our own new civil rights laws into the Constitution. But we have become too partisan to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
> But we have become too partisan to do that
This is exactly it. During the last X decades where candidates released their tax returns at least 3 months before vote date, if we wanted this to become a standing thing that all candidates MUST do, we SHOULD have made it a constitutional amendment. Then it is no longer subject to the whims of each candidate. But we are now making the republicans die on this hill that they shouldn't want that due to Trump, despite it being good for everyone if this were the ca
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
Equally funny (frustrating?), are those that "worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it", but sure do love to quote Amendments.
Re: (Score:3)
That is stupid. The amendents ARE part of the Constitution. They are in there because 2/3 of each house of Congress,and 3/4 of the States, approved them. IF you manage to come up with a proposal that meets that criteria the Constitution will again be altered. But it shouldn't be IGNORED just because some so called progressive think it should be changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says is can't be changed? I know a lot of people who say certain things WON'T be changed, because there is not enough support, but I haven't heard anyone say it CAN'T be changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True that. And one of the earliest acts of our nation was to enact 10 Amendments to our Constitution. Fairly quickly in historical terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know much about the history of the Republican Party, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
You're off-topic, we're talking recent history. As in changes that occurred in the 20th and 21st century. Much of what was possible in the 19th century is no longer possible under current elections regulation, State laws, and House and Senate rules.
Re: green (Score:2)
To think it was easier back then...
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
As long as it is altered via the amendment process as defined in the Constitution, that's fine. It's when lawmakers and judges choose to ignore the Constitution, magically redefine what words mean or just "wink, wink" things that conservatives object.