Congress seems woefully unprepared to regulate X; Committees have limited effectiveness; even if some members carefully listened to all testimony; partisan gridlock at present would be a limiting factor over the last 10 years.
- Privacy Laws; Congress proposed laws including device manufacturers giving encryption certificates to the government; at a similar time where leaked NSA tools have become the primary tool of Ransomware.
- Agriculture; The conclusion is generally that farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies aren't based on what's good for the country or energy efficiency, but one of the first primary caucuses.
- Immigration; Decades of high numbers of h2b (migrant) visas with no path to citizenship for DREAMers; Inflation partly caused by lack of workers thanks to a large retiring generation (and lower average life expectancy), while legal immigration limits keep potential workers from legal jobs.
Fixed if for you.
Unless it's giving themselves a raise of course.
They aren't smarter than us and they don't know anything about the present. I don't care what the founders thought nor what people today imagine they would think.
Why should we care in the 21st century? The founders weren't omniscient, benevolent gods. They were just wealthy landowners looking out for their own interests — it's crucial to note that they ignored over half the population of the colonies, i.e., women and black people — and they borrowed the majority of their (now long outdated) ideas from 17th century British philosopher John Locke.
The US Constitution is woefully unprepared for the present and future.
To me, it doesn't make sense to have very many laws that apply nationally because people lead such completely different lives depending on where they live in the country. e.g. a person living in San Francisco leads a wildly different life than someone in rural Montana, and passing laws that both people actually _want_ is difficult.
The more granular and narrowly scoped laws are, the better, in my opinion.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments, but it is intentionally resistant to change to ensure proper debate and compromise so that it benefits the country as a whole.
Even when something has overwhelming support, it can be nearly impossible. Often, people will support something (as they indicate to pollsters) but vote against it because of the ties of politics: "I'll vote against the thing that bugs you if you'll vote against the thing that bugs me".
We've had no nontrivial amendments in half a century, and even nontrivial laws are rare. The national conversation has taken a nosedive, and I believe a considerable piece of it is that there is a large minority who benefits from nothing happening. Any "compromises" happen by skirting the rules: Supreme Court judgments, Executive branch declarations, and other actions that bypass the intended routes of discussion.
c/had/borrowed
> some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with.
A compromise that didn't even work well or last, as violently evidenced by the Civil War.
> The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments
In the past hundred years, it's only been amended eight times. One of those was to repeal a previous amendment (alcohol prohibition). Three of the eight are related to Presidential terms and succession. Another one, the last amendment in 1992, was about Congressional salaries. The last substantial amendment, over 50 years ago, lowered the voting age to 18.
Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent.
> it benefits the country as a whole
The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole, as I already explained in my previous comment.
It seems that you're taking this as a sign that the Constitution isn't still relevant. I'd ask you to consider that this might be a sign of the exact opposite, and that we can't get broad buy-in on the things that some groups see as obvious additions.
If the MLB were trying to update the rules of baseball to make it more exciting, and one camp wanted to do that by increasing the number of home runs while the other wanted to do it by increasing the number of strike-outs, it makes sense that they should sort out which approach is best before passing rules (or allowing flip-flopping every year)
> The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole
For citizens, this is so demonstrably false that I feel like I must be misinterpreting you here.
Why is that a bad thing? What specifically needs to be amended?
This is more an indictment of 20th and 21st century politicians than it is the founders.
+1
When you're running for a district you can slice the population up into various causes and then run on that. It doesn't matter if your platform is "far-X" because if you can scoop up 20% of the population that's a win at the ballot.
Congress really needs to be larger than it is, the citizen:representative ratio should really be fixed at a ratio and not fixed at the #of representatives. Plenty of other countries have more representatives than the US despite a smaller population. Assuming that we picked say 150k citizens: 1 representative then you should also be able to forfeit your vote along with ~150k other people to select a representative.
I don't care if you want to blame someone else for "not implementing the obvious vision of the founders."
They aren't here and can't make any decisions for us that we couldn't better make ourselves. They aren't wiser than us.
Our present state isn't some deviation from their potential utopia. Their intentions are completely irrelevant. Comporting our behavior and desires with whatever someone might imagine they would want is nonsense.
I assume that you're a relatively recent migrant or descendent of migrants with no ties to the historical American nation, so I'm not surprised you wouldn't care what somebody else's ancestors think.
The American constitution has been highly influential on many countries, and many countries have had experiences that contradict the ideas in it quite successfully.
Monarchy existed for 1000s of years. Longevity is irrelevant. It is never relevant who had the idea. Invoking the founders as a justification for anything is error. They are an arbitrary group of non-extants.
Why are you trying to connect the two ideas.
Polls show that we do have broad buy-in on a number of issues, sometimes across partisan lines, but the way the system is designed, a small minority can block almost any action. Also, the leaders of both major political parties often act against the desires of their own "supporters", by which I mean voting supporters rather than their financial supporters.
> For citizens, this is so demonstrably false that I feel like I must be misinterpreting you here.
Here's what I said: "The founders weren't omniscient, benevolent gods. They were just wealthy landowners looking out for their own interests — it's crucial to note that they ignored over half the population of the colonies, i.e., women and black people". How exactly are you interpreting that?
Again, this is a feature, not a bug. If over three-quarters of states or representatives can agree, then an amendment can get passed. If over a quarter of states or representatives don't want to codify something in the constitution, that is not a small minority.
> How exactly are you interpreting that?
I'm not interpreting that portion at all -- I disagree that the founders were only looking out for their own interests, but that's fine to disagree on that bit. I'm responding specifically to "The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole", which is the demonstrably false bit. Every single person in the US today has the benefit of freedom of speech, for instance (despite the fact that historically this was definitely not the case).
I'd say that 25% of states is a small minority of states, but in any case that's ignoring the population of states, which vary dramatically (California 39M, Wyoming 580K). 25% of the states is not necessarily 25% of the US population; it's possibly much smaller than 25%.
> Every single person in the US today has the benefit of freedom of speech, for instance
Except that our beloved Supreme Court (which has been revealed to be blatantly corrupt) has decided that money is speech, thereby allowing the wealthy to simply purchase our elected representatives.
A quarter of states is meaningless when states exist specifically to vote a certain way, rather than to represent groups of people
Moreover, leaving things to the states is how slavery was allowed before the Civil War, and how black people continued to be oppressed even after they were technically freed. (Remember that poll taxes for example were not prohibited until 1964.) So no, I'm not particularly interested in leaving things to the states. To take a much more recent example, why should a woman's right to get an abortion depend on where she stands relative to some arbitrary state line?
I think it's silly and counterproductive to behave as if we have 50 separate countries, united only by "national" defense, or whatever one thinks the minimal requirements are. And we can see how the UK shot itself in the foot by stupidly leaving the EU. Local rule is not necessarily better rule.
The latter decreased home runs (at least early in the season last year, I forget end of season results), but just turns them into boring fly outs. It also didn’t really increase base running, since it wasn’t dead enough to cause most players to change their approach (mainly, try and hit a home run). I’m unsure how the ball has been this year but it’s seemed to carry more based on my casual viewing, and the MLB has been suspected of tampering with the ball for seasons / games for a few years now without discussing it (e.g., putting juiced balls in big games and tweaking the formula season to season for one reason or another).
They also mandated motion capture cameras be present in every stadium to collect data for teams and push that data to both teams and viewers, yet bemoan that baseball has become too analytics driven. Manfred (the commissioner) has complained about decisions like starting pitchers facing fewer batters, pitchers being too good in general, the shift before it was banned, and more, but these tactics have largely come about due analyzing the data.
As an organization, they generally seem confused about what they want and how to achieve it. I’m not sure if that’s due to factions within the ownership group (maybe you can draw some political parallels there), or something within the MLB leadership.
Would you apply a similar standard to the LGBT community? They are approximately 7% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_Unite...
> Would you apply a similar standard to the LGBT community? They are approximately 7% of the population.
You're mixing up rights and voting. The LGBT community doesn't get to pass or veto any laws.
A person has rights. A state is not a person. Corporations are not people, my friend. I don't believe in the concept of state's rights, so I don't accept the analogy. A state is just an arbitrary set of lines on a map. It doesn't have needs.
In the case of voting, I think the majority should decide rather than the minority, otherwise it's not really democratic. If the 7% LGBT community ruled the country, that would also be a tyranny, not a democracy.
Abortion is a great example, the issue isn’t as simple as banning it or allowing it. At how many weeks and under what circumstances should it be allowed? Should the father be part of the decision? What about if the mother is below the age of legal consent? Do her parents get a say?
This is a fair preference, but many people prefer the exact opposite. For instance, people leaving high-tax states for lower-tax ones, or people leaving abortion-restricting states to less restrictive ones.
> people leaving abortion-restricting states to less restrictive ones
It's incorrect to claim that people leaving abortion-restricting states to less restrictive ones have the opposite preference to me. My preference, and I'd guess their preference in most cases, is to not allow any state to outlaw abortion. The idea that a woman leaving her own state to get an abortion has the preference of allowing states to decide to outlaw abortion sounds pretty absurd to me.
Furthermore, polls show that the majority of Americans support abortion rights, nationwide. "A record-high 69% say abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy." "A 61% majority of Americans think overturning Roe v. Wade, thus ending constitutional protection for abortion rights and returning the matter to the states, was a “bad thing" https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion...
Here's a funny thing (funny as in hypocritical, not funny as in amusing): I've seen too many instances where advocates of "local control" suddenly impose restrictions on local control when they happen to achieve broader power and are able to implement their policy goals. It was never really about local control, it was about winning by any means available.
Yes, but that is the preference of anyone who believes that they're right and the others are wrong. Federalist pro-life voters certainly bemoan that any state allows for abortion.
The whole point of making constitutional amendments is that you either have to:
A.) Have over three-quarters of representatives or states willing to vote with you, demonstrating overwhelming will of the people, or B.) Understand that others disagree with you that the given thing should be codified as a right. In this case, being able to move to places with the rights you want to have enshrined is a good option.
Yes, I said something similar in my own comment.
> demonstrating overwhelming will of the people
The bar for "overwhelming" is too high. The status quo always benefits certain people over other people. So under this system, the status quo, and the people who already benefit from it, almost always win. And thus I claim, contrary to yours, that the country as a whole never benefits from the system.
> In this case, being able to move to places with the rights you want to have enshrined is a good option.
There's actually an important difference between having a freedom and having a right, and not every freedom needs to be a right. That's because freedom is the default in our system. No action is illegal unless a specific law is passed to outlaw that action. A Constitutional right means that the government cannot pass a law to outlaw an action. The Supreme Court struck down the right to abortion, but it did not thereby make abortion illegal. Women are still free to get an abortion, unless some government passes a law against it, which is now allowed. My point here is that you don't have to support a national Constitutional right to abortion in order to support the freedom to get an abortion. Consequently, there's still no reason to support the right of individual states to outlaw abortion, regardless of the Dobbs decision. The only reason that abortion is illegal anywhere is because individual states have passed specific laws banning it. It's a restriction of the default freedom. The states are the problem here, not the solution. There's no federal law banning abortion.
Of course there's a tradeoff here, because going back to the original long lost topic of the submitted article, regulating tech, if states have the right to pass more restrictive legislation than the federal government, that allows individual states to regulate tech in a way that Congress won't.
On the other hand, big tech companies have already shown the inclination to completely bypass entire states or indeed entire countries, so it's unclear how effectively individual states can regulate tech. And my personal opinion is that it's not a good tradeoff to allow state's rights for good causes when they have been so obviously and pervasively abused for bad causes.