Constitutions Rewrite%?

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
19,920
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
So if you want to amend the US constitution you need 75% of the states to sign-off on it.

This makes it very difficult to change. And you have bad faith actors.

NZ has no formal constitution but it has constitutional law. However a simple majority in parliament xan theoretically rewrote any of them on 51% of the vote (proportional). Theoretically due to wasted votes and rounding it's 48% of the voters and in an ultra extreme example as low as 5% ( one party gets 5% the rest do not or win electorate seats.). NZ relies on good faith, no bad actors and cultural calues (she'll be right).

So what do you think is a good number required to rewrite a constitution? Popular vote vs states, simple majority or super majority (66%, 75%, or whatever?).
 
So if you want to amend the US constitution you need 75% of the states to sign-off on it.

This makes it very difficult to change. And you have bad faith actors.

NZ has no formal constitution but it has constitutional law. However a simple majority in parliament xan theoretically rewrote any of them on 51% of the vote (proportional). Theoretically due to wasted votes and rounding it's 48% of the voters and in an ultra extreme example as low as 5% ( one party gets 5% the rest do not or win electorate seats.). NZ relies on good faith, no bad actors and cultural calues (she'll be right).

So what do you think is a good number required to rewrite a constitution? Popular vote vs states, simple majority or super majority (66%, 75%, or whatever?).

No bad actors in New Zealand but bad actors exclusively in America?

I'm content with 75% of the States having to ratify a constitutional amendment, you don't want a constitution to be so easily changed otherwise you run the risk of a massive imbalance of power whereby a populist madman can turn himself into an authoritarian leader for life.

New Zealand uses the British system so things are based more on precedent than what's written in stone. That doesn't mean it's a better system, if anything it means most British Commonwealth nations run the risk of constitutional crises being more common. Mostly because of legal disagreement of which constitutes valid precedent or not. Of course the Monarchy is head of state for all these nations and still technically delegates it's ancient rights to the varying governments, which means Charles III could essentially function as plunge protection if any government throughout the Commonwealth system falls into degeneracy and idiocracy. Though certain legal teams may disagree as to whether the precedent exists for him to do so (because of no recent precedent), but probably if things got pretty bad they'd just step aside and let him do what needs to be done to end the crisis.

Of course should the King advocate for the side of those advocating for more degeneracy and idiocracy (*cough cough* Tories). Well..... maybe the American system is better.
 
Oh wait it was actually ratified in 1992, so Bush Sr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So actually it's kinda strange, it was passed over 200 years prior but they like forgot about it until a 19 year old college student reminded them it had actually passed. Hmmm very strange indeed, guess they tried to pass it under the rug so there wouldn't have to be a vote every time they want a pay raise.
 
No bad actors in New Zealand but bad actors exclusively in America?

I'm content with 75% of the States having to ratify a constitutional amendment, you don't want a constitution to be so easily changed otherwise you run the risk of a massive imbalance of power whereby a populist madman can turn himself into an authoritarian leader for life.

New Zealand uses the British system so things are based more on precedent than what's written in stone. That doesn't mean it's a better system, if anything it means most British Commonwealth nations run the risk of constitutional crises being more common. Mostly because of legal disagreement of which constitutes valid precedent or not. Of course the Monarchy is head of state for all these nations and still technically delegates it's ancient rights to the varying governments, which means Charles III could essentially function as plunge protection if any government throughout the Commonwealth system falls into degeneracy and idiocracy. Though certain legal teams may disagree as to whether the precedent exists for him to do so (because of no recent precedent), but probably if things got pretty bad they'd just step aside and let him do what needs to be done to end the crisis.

Of course should the King advocate for the side of those advocating for more degeneracy and idiocracy (*cough cough* Tories). Well..... maybe the American system is better.

No in a position of power who are trying to wreck the system.
 
I'd be curious to see what a whole new Constitutional convention, to write a new Constitution from scratch, would come up with in the US in 2023. Just thinking about how to choose the delegates is an interesting thought exercise in itself.

As for amending our current Constitution, I'm okay with that being functionally out of reach for the foreseeable future. I think our problem with guns cannot be addressed until we rewrite or repeal the 2nd Amendment, and I'd like to see the right to privacy made explicit, but I would be too scared to see what kind of havoc the authoritarians and religious zealots would wreak to risk making the amendment process easier.
 
I'd be curious to see what a whole new Constitutional convention, to write a new Constitution from scratch, would come up with in the US in 2023. Just thinking about how to choose the delegates is an interesting thought exercise in itself.

As for amending our current Constitution, I'm okay with that being functionally out of reach for the foreseeable future. I think our problem with guns cannot be addressed until we rewrite or repeal the 2nd Amendment, and I'd like to see the right to privacy made explicit, but I would be too scared to see what kind of havoc the authoritarians and religious zealots would wreak to risk making the amendment process easier.

Personally I think 66% is about the lowest the USA could/should lower it to.
 
At 51%, the Trump Party could have destroyed the US in 2017-19 when they controlled Congress and the White House. The US Constitution is often derided for being slow, even clunky. I'd rather that than my civil rights hanging by a thread depending on which political party is in power.
 
At 51%, the Trump Party could have destroyed the US in 2017-19 when they controlled Congress and the White House. The US Constitution is often derided for being slow, even clunky. I'd rather that than my civil rights hanging by a thread depending on which political party is in power.

Well depends if it's 51% of congress/parliament, citizens via referendum or states that's 3 different things.

Functionally here it's 51% or a bit less around 49%.

An NZ Trump could essentially do whatever and rewrite ay law they liked with a compliant governor General.
 
At 51%, the Trump Party could have destroyed the US in 2017-19 when they controlled Congress and the White House. The US Constitution is often derided for being slow, even clunky. I'd rather that than my civil rights hanging by a thread depending on which political party is in power.
There was a Conservative commentator I was listening to a year or two ago - I can't remember who it was now, but I think it was one of the thoughtful ones who actually likes this country - who said that the political gridlock we've experienced lately is the U.S. system working as intended. I'm not sure I agree, but it was food for thought, anyway.
 
So what do you think is a good number required to rewrite a constitution? Popular vote vs states, simple majority or super majority (66%, 75%, or whatever?).

One Putin
 
Unlike the US, it takes referenda to change Australia's constitution, not just state governments making the decision. Specifically it requires a double majority - the yes vote has to win nationally and also in four of the 6 states.

The last referendum was the failed republic referendum in 1999, though it was kinda sabotaged and didn't really reflect actual majority support for retaining the monarchy.
 
No bad actors in New Zealand but bad actors exclusively in America?

I'm content with 75% of the States having to ratify a constitutional amendment, you don't want a constitution to be so easily changed otherwise you run the risk of a massive imbalance of power whereby a populist madman can turn himself into an authoritarian leader for life.

New Zealand uses the British system so things are based more on precedent than what's written in stone. That doesn't mean it's a better system, if anything it means most British Commonwealth nations run the risk of constitutional crises being more common. Mostly because of legal disagreement of which constitutes valid precedent or not. Of course the Monarchy is head of state for all these nations and still technically delegates it's ancient rights to the varying governments, which means Charles III could essentially function as plunge protection if any government throughout the Commonwealth system falls into degeneracy and idiocracy. Though certain legal teams may disagree as to whether the precedent exists for him to do so (because of no recent precedent), but probably if things got pretty bad they'd just step aside and let him do what needs to be done to end the crisis.

Of course should the King advocate for the side of those advocating for more degeneracy and idiocracy (*cough cough* Tories). Well..... maybe the American system is better.

New Zealand and the UK are actually the outliers here, the other Commonwealth realms have formal constitutions, with Canada having something codified from other documents under a Constitution Act while Australia, Belize, PNG, Jamaica etc have regular formal constitutions. Other republican systems originally derived from Westminster traditions like Ireland, India and South Africa also have constitutions. Nearly all the Commowenalth states have them.

It's very much the exception for countries with common law legal systems and parliamentary political systems derived from the UK to still lack formal constitutions.
 
Last edited:
Articles in the constitution must be declared to be revised by one government and then actually rewritten by the next, so that at least one federal election passes in between.

In addition you need a federal 2/3 majority and a simple majority in each state separately.
 
New Zealand and the UK are actually the outliers here, the other Commonwealth realms have formal constitutions, with Canada having something codified from other documents under a Constitution Act while Australia, Belize, PNG, Jamaica etc have regular formal constitutions. Other republican systems originally derived from Westminster traditions like Ireland, India and South Africa also have constitutions. Nearly all the Commowenalth states have them.

It's very much the exception for countries with common law legal systems and parliamentary political systems derived from the UK to still lack formal constitutions.

I got into an argument on NZ reddit. We have constitutional law but pretty much everyone xan be revised, discarded or rewritten by a simple act of parliament.

Thus includes the bill of rights act and human rights act.

Tge posters then pointed out the governor General can stop things but u pointed out the PM appoints the Governor Geberal and can also fire the governor General.

The Governor General can also fire the PM which would trigger a constitutional crisis.

An NZ Chavez/Trump/Bolsonaro type figure could theoretically inflict a huge amount of damage.

Mostly it seems to assume good faith and "she'll be right" cultural characteristics.
 
Top Bottom