Giant Panda
Member
Tell me about it.
Dax, on this part of your post:
Someone could correct me, but I'm not sure if this is true. Is it?
Oldest one still in use I believe.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Oldest one still in use I believe.
Tell me about it.
Dax, on this part of your post:
Someone could correct me, but I'm not sure if this is true. Is it?
Oldest still in use. Most modern democracies came about after the American Revolution, it was actually a sort of spark that set a bunch of similar revolutions off. For example the French Revolution.
EDIT: It's pretty crazy how popular the blog is in Europe...
The Librarian
Banned
As far as I could find, it is. I remember someone here pointing out that there's another country that has a constitution older than ours, but it's really more of a set of statutes than it is a constitution.
Edit: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-huntsman/oldest-surviving-one-document-text/
Edit 2: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_country_has_the_oldest_written_constitution
I'll edit the post to be clearer.
Jack Remington
Banned
Hey guys, I'm new to this board. Big fan of what you guys are doing with that blog.
Well, shows what I know, then!
Don't ask me why, but I was thinking of the Magna Carta for some reason.
Jack Remington
Banned
I had a history teacher who really liked to talk up the fact that we've had the same constitution with only minor changes for over 200 years, while other countries have changed their constitutions far more often.
I honestly think it holds us back. Just look at the bullshit the second amendment is causing right now.
I honestly think it holds us back. Just look at the bullshit the second amendment is causing right now.
Absolutely, the sacred pedestal we put the constitution on is an impediment to the advancement of modern society. That said, it is good we have guiding principles... and just as good that we can change them, if need be.
That's one of the first example of a King's people limiting his power and subjecting him to the rule of law (if memory serves, it's been a while since I've taken Brit history). In practice it didn't do a whole lot, but it paved the way for our Constitution and constitutional democracy as we know it.
I think our major problem is that we aren't as willing to change the constitution as we should be. It doesn't account for a lot of modern things that are really central to the way we live our lives today. It's meant to be updated as the times change but we're just really hesitant to do so.
The Librarian
Banned
Ooh! You know what'd be a great idea? To have my LBJ post up for MLK Jr. Day.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Eh. I like that. We have changed within that document though. We've added 26 amendments and the documents was great because its not like most modern consitutions where lawmaking is done within the constitution (I believe ours is the shortest where as Indias is like 12,000 pages or some crap) which is a much greater impediment to change than a rather limited constitution with lots of leg room.
I don't even think the 2nd amendment is that wrong if its interpretation up till 2008 was restored
Yep, the Constitution is designed to be updated as needed. It's not a problem with the document, but rather our leader's reluctance to use that power.
Also, the second amendment itself isn't as much of a problem as most people's hilariously inaccurate interpretation of it is.
Jack Remington
Banned
I think the fact that it was designed as a compromise between manufacturing and agrarian interests, and was originally seen as an economic and military alliance between independent states, limits our ability to respond quickly and effectively to matters of national importance.
Byakuya769
Member
I like my professor basically saying "fuck the Constitution."
The Librarian
Banned
Taken on its own, there is nothing wrong with the structure of the Constitution. However, that structure is incompatible with how a twenty-first century nation needs to operate. It's incompatible with how the country wants to operate today.
Another con of Congress gridlocking itself is the tendency of the institution to shirk its responsibilities onto the executive.
Another con of Congress gridlocking itself is the tendency of the institution to shirk its responsibilities onto the executive.
I'd definitely agree with this. I think it's largely a problem with our citizens. I mean, yes there's some built in slowness in the Constitution, but I think we could get over that if we had a population more willing to try to change for the better. A lot of arguments nowadays are kind of lazy appeals to authority using the constitution. I sometimes wish we didn't have the 2nd amendment at all. Not because I don't like it, or even because I don't believe in the individuals right to a gun, but because people don't seem to want to defend that on its own merits. It's usually just a "well, it says it right there."
Jack Remington
Banned
The idea of a three month debt ceiling extension is hilarious. What's even more hilarious is Obama taking his options off the table. No 14th Amendment. No platinum coin. I guess the coin coming off the table was Bernanke and Geithner's fault, but they're Obama appointees. He should be able to bring them in line. Poor leadership.
First rule of negotiation, never let the other side know you can or will do it without them. It takes away their willingness to compromise. I don't think it would ever comes to the 14th or the coin, but saying he would do either just weakens his position.
The few comments I saw from Republicans as of recently sounded pretty gutted about the whole thing. Unless they're playing an act I'm really not sure what to think. And if they're saying they absolutely won't default the nation, then they have absolutely no leverage and they can't demand anything, whether it be now, in 3 months, or in 3 years. I kind of feel like they called their own bluff already.
Yeah, I'm one that believes the individual right to carry a gun anywhere and own any gun is most definitely not what that amendment is saying at all. It's really horrible how we all have such a bit appeal to authority to this amendment and then don't even really read what it says.
The platinum coin idea was not getting favorable press; most non-liberals thought it was a completely goofy idea and the process of defending it likely would not be worth the trouble.
I don't think the idea of a debt ceiling fight every 3 months is healthy, but ultimately Congress won't let the nation default. They're just trying to find some ground to negotiate with (and failing at it).
I don't think the idea of a debt ceiling fight every 3 months is healthy, but ultimately Congress won't let the nation default. They're just trying to find some ground to negotiate with (and failing at it).
ErasureAcer
Banned
Just watched some mediaite:
Lawrence O'Donnell ripping into Tom Selleck was pretty good.
Bill Maher's points on the second and third amendments was good but he wasted that with his next point on movies/videogames.
Lawrence O'Donnell ripping into Tom Selleck was pretty good.
Bill Maher's points on the second and third amendments was good but he wasted that with his next point on movies/videogames.
The Librarian
Banned
A large part of Congressional dysfunction stems from the radicalization of the Republican Party, true, but even if the Republican Party weren't crazy, you'd still prefer the party of your choice be in charge so they can fully enact the legislation you want to the best of their ability.
Everybody in here cheers on congressional elections so Congress can behave like a parliament. Oh, and the Senate is stupid.
Everybody in here cheers on congressional elections so Congress can behave like a parliament. Oh, and the Senate is stupid.
Yeah, unfortunately even a lot of liberals laughed at the coin. It was just too out there of an idea, really.
Is it really a fight if you know your partner will fold? If they called their own bluff, then why would we ever have a reason to believe they're not bluffing?
The only problem with the Senate is the current incarnation of the Filibuster. God I'm pissed at Reid for pussying out of reinstating the Talking Filibuster.
EDIT: Also secret holds are bullshit and need to go as well. Basically anything that can hide someone while they stop progress on something. I want to be able to point to the guy who is holding up the confirmation of the director of the ATF.
The Librarian
Banned
Anything outside of Politico that confirms that?
And what else is stupid about the Senate:
A. California: 2 Senators
B. Wyoming: 2 Senators
As far as that goes it's fine. It gives the smaller states we'd normally ignore a voice. I'm all for propping up the little guy and giving him an equal voice, I just don't want him to be able to fuck everyone else over.
No one outside of Politico yet, but knowing Harry Reid it's probably true. I want to believe he's got that level of fight in him, but he's yet to demonstrate it.
Giant Panda
Member
In some ways the Constitution really does need to be easier to change and update. One thought that I find it interesting though is if the Constitution was easy to update beginning I wonder what terrible additions some of the earlier governments in our history would've added. I'd say on many topics in American history the public has been more conservative than many of the ideas the founding fathers based Constitution on.
For instance, I can imagine Christianity being given a special spot in the Constitution if that were the case. In any case, I find it interesting to talk about all different possibilities the Constitution could have been or could be in the future.
For instance, I can imagine Christianity being given a special spot in the Constitution if that were the case. In any case, I find it interesting to talk about all different possibilities the Constitution could have been or could be in the future.
The Librarian
Banned
But the country really isn't about big states vs. small states anymore. The only reason why we have differences that matter between big states and small states is because we have structures in place to make those differences matter. What sort of say does Wyoming need to have over California? Texas? Delegates in California nor Texas wouldn't vote as one group to put down Wyoming or anything.
Jack Remington
Banned
I think it would have been a prime opportunity to teach some macroeconomics to the layperson.
I agree. But you know what they say about explaining things... Once you do it, you've lost, unfortunately. So I see why they probably won't do it
The Librarian
Banned
The Librarian
Banned
I dunno, I just don't like the idea of the little guy potentially getting screwed over. We sort of have a history of doing that. I can't say I would say no to a parliamentary system though.
Anyone that has yet to do it, send me their little bio thing through a PM, and I can change it. Oblivion, you need one, I know, especially since you already contributed. And you should check out your display name. If you want to keep it that way, that's fine, but I just didn't know if you had meant to.
Yeah, probably in a few minutes.
You going to make a thread about the blog?
Yeah, probably in a few minutes.
The layperson can't comprehend the second amendment; you expect them to understand anything involving economics?
Jack Remington
Banned
I almost wish Reid had lost his Senate race in 2010, just so we'd have him the fuck out of the Majority Leader position. But then again, his replacement would probably suck just as much.
Computer Science at the end of things.
Well, it does turn out to be the case that states with small populations are also very rural, just because if they had a significant city they wouldn't have small populations. The modern worry is more that California's Senators don't have any real reason to care about the interests of rural voters. Personally, I think the House does a fine job of representing them in proportion to their population, and we get coalitions within states because it's not the case that all voters not living in the countryside are united.
You do remember that his opponent was a fucking lunatic, right? I much rather have a corpse elected to the senate over her.
Odds are Chuck Schumer would have replaced him, definite upgrade honestly. The people of NY love the guy (unless he retires he's going to hold his seat forever) and he's done a lot of good work over the years. He's responsible for the original credit card reform from back in the day.
That was a funny one. I dunno who was the craziest person that year, it was either her or the guy running against Cuomo though.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I just hope whoever Reid's successor as Dem caucus leader (whether in the majority or minority) is in a safe blue seat instead of a swing state. Tom Daschle getting rejected by his own state should have paved the way for someone like Schumer or Durbin, who would have the job for life if they wanted it. It's not like McConnell ever has to pretend to be a moderate to win elections.
The Librarian
Banned
Within California there's rural areas too. In cases where we see points when other states need money, we have some cases of asshole legislators that withhold their votes for states that need disaster relief money, but overwhelmingly we see other legislators care about other states. We have farm/agriculture bills that come up for a reason.
Jack Remington
Banned
Ashley Judd. Believe.
Need to work on improving my Huffington Post-like click bait abilities. Time to create a vague two word headline that has little to do with my writing with a picture of Obama frowning underneath it.
Don't get me wrong; the very thought of McConnell losing is exciting; but Ashley Judd is way to left-leaning for freaking Kentucky. If McConnell was up against FDR in a senate race next year he'd probably still win there.
Yeah, there are rural voters in California, but Senate elections are statewide winner-take-all, so if a state only has the average proportion of rural voters (~30%), it may be hard for them to get representation. To the extent that some urban/rural issue is very salient in politics, the Senators from California are going to tend to be on the urban side.
Edit: And we do see this. There aren't many obvious urban/rural divides, but it turns out to be the case that lots of social issues split something like this way. Hence "land don't vote". So more rural states tend to be more Republican. Of course I'd kind of prefer that Republicans have less representation, but to the extent that we do want the Senate to represent rural voters, it does a reasonable job by inflating the number of Republicans. (checking some numbers) Actually the most rural states don't tend to elect particularly Republican Senators, so fuck if I know what's going on.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
- Status