Mastodawn

Jeff Atwood Mar 4

https://chqdaily.com/2017/07/paul-raushenbush-discusses-great-grandfathers-inner-vision-carried-work-forward/

As for the nation’s literature, Brandeis may have been the first .. to refer to the Constitution as a “living organism, capable of growth and adaptation.”

“This approach allows the fresh context of the present to perform alchemy with the wisdom of the past, to offer new ways to make the law and faith relevant and responsive to present conditions,” he said. “Prophetic witness cannot set its gaze backward on a frozen history with an unrecognizable context. Instead, it faces forward, informed by the past, yet determined to bring back vision into the world in the present age.”

This no longer works, unfortunately.. how does the constitution change when it is effectively impossible to amend due to Constitutional Calcification .. only "interpret" through a ridiculously gerrymandered (thanks Mitch M) SCOTUS? https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/116115405545619662

I don't really see a way out here, honestly. If you do, tell me what it is, step by step. Explain it to me like I'm five years old.

Jeff Atwood Mar 4

I mean, I do see a way out, but nobody wants to hear it. Because, again, remarkable lack of bravery here in the land of the free. Just MHO.

Ian Douglas Scott Mar 4

@codinghorror The constitution of the US is treated as a religous text, so if you suggest replacing it with a modern constitution you are a heretic to be burned at the stake.

Robert Pluim 🇪🇺Mar 4

@codinghorror The only way out I can see from way over here involves distressing levels of violence and death. Unless by some miracle the Dems win the house and the senate *and* use the power to counter Trump and his apparatus, *and* then enact what people actually need, such as socialized healthcare

CassandraVert Mar 5

The silver lining to 47 burning everything down is we get to build it back how we want. Everyone has seen that the constitution has a few holes that need filling. We've seen quite a few weak areas thanks to those who would exploit them.

MaysonLancaster Mar 4

@codinghorror Reminds me of the prelude to the India-Pakistan breakup…

Bent Chinrest Mar 4

@codinghorror Secession isn't a very good solution, since the resultant "allied nations" have a considerable amount of hostile territory interposed between them

Jeff Atwood Mar 5

@paneerakbari three countries, scan my timeline for details

reaversion Mar 4

@codinghorror It's difficult but it's not impossible to amend; the most recent amendment was ratified in 1992, which isn't that long ago. But with how polarized the US is, it would be a miracle. If I was charismatic I'd try to do it, but I'm just a cranky, withdrawn, degenerate internet gremlin. But who knows? Maybe another Zohran will appear to lead us in the right direction peacefully. Anything can happen. For better or worse...

reaversion Mar 4

@codinghorror One way I could plausibly imagine this happening is if someone comes up with a positive proposal that goes viral. I don't know what that proposal would be or who (person or group) would put it forward for everyone to rally around, but it's at least possible.

CassandraVert Mar 5

"Tax billionaires out of existence" has gotten some traction.

Stephen John Anderson Mar 5

@reaversion @codinghorror I think that part of the problem (as an outsider) is that it's already dealt with a lot of the low-hanging fruit. For an amendment to pass now, it would have to have such broad appeal that Congress, the Senate and 38 state legislatures would have to back it in fear of losing their supporters. What's left that is _that_ uncontroversial?

You're practically looking at only the kind of things that will cause mass unrest if the government doesn't act, amongst voters of _all_ political persuasions. And that moment does not appear to be here, as yet.

Stephen John Anderson Mar 5

@reaversion @codinghorror Besides which, if the current government has managed to perform sufficient capture of the Supreme Court, it turns out they can just choose to ignore bits of the Constitution they don't like. Again, this is just _wild_ to watch as an outsider. Trump clearly violated the Constitution by going to war on his own recognisance, and absolutely _nothing_ is happening about it. The emperor has no clothes and the Constitution has no teeth.

CassandraVert Mar 5

It would have to be something different than anyone alive today has seen, which translates to radical.

Luke Kanies Mar 5

@codinghorror I’d love to have a call about this at some point, or meet over coffee. I don’t think I understand what you mean, and I’d like to.

I feel existential dread, and I appreciate that you feel you have an answer, but I don’t understand it.

Jeff Atwood Mar 5

@lkanies constitutional convention. Three countries, most likely.

Luke Kanies Mar 5

@codinghorror so like an archipelago of blue cities, a hodge podge of red country?

Or just west coast, northeast, and Montana to Florida, each as separate countries?

J. Peterson Mar 4

@codinghorror If you tried to re-write the constitution today, you'd have to battle the nut cases that want the country to be a Christian theocracy (among many similar issues).

Jeff Atwood Mar 4

@isonno or we simply do it without them and proceed.

J. Peterson Mar 4

Jeff Atwood Mar 4

@isonno look at the alignments and resources of these nine states. Very very closely. Because I have. For one thing, OR, WA, and CA are an absolute lock for west coast.

Parker Morse Mar 4

@codinghorror @isonno The more I learn about U.S. history the more often I find stories about states admitted to the Union when they were, or with the borders they have, because the then-current Congress hoped it would give them an advantage in the Senate and/or Electoral College. (Dakotas? Wyoming? F*ing MAINE?!?) And every one of those incidents highlights the mutually-reinforcing ideas that the Constitution is flawed, and it's nearly impossible to change the rules while the game is ongoing.

Parker Morse Mar 4

@codinghorror @isonno Packing the Supreme Court is *amateur hour*. Real pros pack the Senate.

@isonno @codinghorror This is simply inaccurate.

You can't amend the Constitution to balance the Senate:

"... Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; > and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. <"

@isonno @codinghorror (That first part says they can't fix slavery until 1808... and no, I didn't learn that in school either.)

Robot Diver 🌊🌬️🍃🌿🌸🌱🌱🌱Mar 5

@isonno @codinghorror

This is pretty much the same situation in Canada under a slightly different system

Khleedril Mar 5

@isonno @codinghorror I've long thought that the best thing for the US right now is to allow Greenland to 'invade' for one day, and then 'defeat' them; in that day they can kick the current government out and disavow the constitution, leaving the place clean to make a new start.