Constitutions Rewrite%?

[Joij21]

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.

Yes that is the system working.

One does not need a Federal Government that's always churning away, remember the country was founded on classically liberal ideas whereby it was believed a people must be self sufficient to be truly free and don't need constant reliance and help from an all powerful centralized state. Most safety nets and public goods were to be provided by one's localized state government, or county/municipal governments. Hence the issue of states rights.

It is when the people move away from a belief in classical liberalism to progressive liberalism that a perception in the state not working becomes appropriate. Since under progressive liberalism the state is supposed to be centralized and highly functional in order to provide an adequate social democracy. Neoliberalism too requires a highly centralized and functional state in order to redistribute public funds more efficiently into the hands of private corporations, in effect neoliberalism is corporate democracy a form of corporatism, the autocratic form of which being fascism.

Therefore as one can see both the leftists and the fascists would prefer a strong and centralized federal government that just gets things done. More specifically gets things done specifically for their group and ideology only. However there would likely be a transitory period beforehand whereby fascists and leftists would be allies with one another in strengthening the federal government through reform. It would be in the final and critical moment that they would turn on one another and make the bid at seizing the apparatus of the highly effective and cohesive state. That's how America would become marxist or fascistic just saying.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

It is, basically. A deadlocked government could never take decisive action to abolish slavery, so it was designed to be easy to deadlock.

 

[Joij21]

It is, basically. A deadlocked government could never take decisive action to abolish slavery, so it was designed to be easy to deadlock.

It has nothing to do with slavery, it was to prevent increasing centralization and the rise of the rule of the one.

 

[Hygro]

It has nothing to do with slavery, it was to prevent increasing centralization and the rise of the rule of the one.

That one being Abe Lincoln, destroyer of slavery

 

[Farm Boy]

A hero of the ages, no lie.

That <slurofchoice> Rep from NYC just wants your stuff and the power to tell you what to do. So does Bubba(or ya'know, <slurofchoice>) the asset forfeiture grubbing Barney Fife.

 

[Josu]

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?).

The Spanish Constitution requires the 60% of votes in the Parliament, then 60% of votes in the Senate, and then if at least 10% of the Parliament asks so, approved in Referendum.
Since the current constitution was approved in 1978 it has been changed twice

 

[Zardnaar]

The Spanish Constitution requires the 60% of votes in the Parliament, then 60% of votes in the Senate, and then if at least 10% of the Parliament asks so, approved in Referendum.
Since the current constitution was approved in 1978 it has been changed twice

How are the senate and parliament elected?

 

[Josu]

How are the senate and parliament elected?e

Parliament has 350 members, they are choosen by lections, each province has assinged a number of parlamentaries based on their population. Parties propose closed lists with their candidates, each voter, votes for a list, not for the candidate. Candidates are elected from lists based on D'Hont Method. This means that a province can elect "Candidate 1 from list 1", "Candidate 1 from list 2", Candidate 1 from list 3" and "Candidate 2 from list 1". "Candidate 1" from each list will be choosen always prior to "Candidate 2" from the same list
Senate has currently 263 members, in elections each provide has assigned 4 senators (this is not true, there are exceptions, but just to simplify), parties propose lists with senators, and each voter, can vote for 3 senators, regardless they are in different lists, you vote for the candidate, not for the list. On the other hand each autonomous comunnity's parliament can choose at least one senator more, plus a senator for each milion of population in this autonomous comunity.

 

[Joij21]

That one being Abe Lincoln, destroyer of slavery

I don't think the Federal Government fully centralized itself to such a degree under Abraham Lincoln that the states became the equivalent of provinces in a unitary system.

Certainly centralization took place, but WW1, the Great Depression, WW2, and especially the Cold War and the War on Terror saw far more of it.

Could we become a unitary system in the future similar to France or China? It's possible, though it may end up being in a more militarized sense like China. (Though I have heard that the French currently believe Macron is quite the despot right now without requiring parliamentary consent to pass unpopular retirement reform via executive powers).

So maybe like a French/Chinese hybrid with a Macronesque system of Presidential authority.

 

[Joij21]

They'll try to keep capitalism though! Don't you worry!

 

[EnglishEdward]

@ Josu

Thank you for your informative post.