2016 elections - because it's never too early

[FunkMonk]

https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/789090575249125376?s=01

[OttoVonBismarck]

Insipid?  Really?  Because the thing is - the BNA Act (renamed in 1982 to the Constitution Act) is exactly the same thing as the US Constitution.  That is to say - they are both written constitutional documents setting out how the nation is to be run.

Do I understand that the US Constitution has special reverence in US political life?  Of course I do.  You can see it all the time in US politics.  I just don't understand why it is so, or I guess I reject the notion that it should be revered in the manner it is.  Which is not the same as saying it should be ignored - far from it.  The rule of law is a very dear principle to uphold.  But rather that if the Constitution isn't working in some manner people should be free to discuss amending it.

I don't think reverence for the constitution is why we don't amend it that often, and I'm not familiar with an anti-amendment argument on the various proposed amendments I've heard about in the last 20 years that could be summed up as "we can't change our sacred document!"

Instead, it's two fold. On one hand, it's just really fucking hard to amend. Both houses of Congress have to pass a proposed amendment by 2/3rds votes, in an era when you can rarely get 50% of Congress to agree even to keep the government operating, and then you have to get 38 state legislatures to sign off on it.

If it was some banal act of political grandstanding, like a Ban on Flag Burning Amendment, it'd probably pass the 38 states easily, but (luckily) enough Democratic congressional types have always made sure a flag burning amendment doesn't get out of congress.

The other thing is, our States are pretty powerful and our Constitution is frequently vague. What this means is that in many areas, Congress can already use things like the Commerce Clause to pass sweeping legislation that doesn't require a constitutional amendment, and due to the "living document" approach to constitutional law prevalent among many supreme court justices the SCOTUS often can move the constitutional football without need for written amendments. When those two things don't happen, the States often fill in the blanks themselves. Note places like New York and New Jersey's very restrictive gun laws, or California's sweeping environmental regulations. Now, for desired things like national legislation on guns or the environment obviously that doesn't get the job done, but a lot of times state by state approaches do tend to shift the cultural and political dialogue. When say California (which is 10% of the country) passes environmental, auto and etc regulations it often ends up having a national impact. Other states will often follow the lead of larger ones, and in many areas of legislation interested private parties (like businesses) will alter their behavior nationally to comply with common state laws (so they don't have to say, have products that are only going to be sold in California and then another product that can be slightly different but be sold in Ohio.)

[garbon]

After all this I'm starting to feel bad for Donald. He's just so completely out of his league (bigly!) . He sucks at debating, he can't stay on message much less string coherent thoughts together on stage, he doesn't know when to stop punching himself in the dick, can't take any advice... This whole time it's basically been The Donald vs. Himself and he's losing 

But yeah, his whole life is unraveling before him for all the world to see. Being humiliated in every debate, even if he doesn't even realize it. That has to to take a toll on him emotionally. I'm sure Ivanka, who seems like an actual decent human being, feels really bad for her Dad. 

I have no sympathies whatsoever.  I mean, it is hard to find any politician who is more repulsive and revolting than Donald Trump in any functioning democracy.  Even if someone actively tries to be obnoxious, it is a challenge to beat Donald Trump.  Brags about sexually assaulting women?  Colludes with foreign enemies?  Calls for your political opponents be jailed or assassinated?  Spews lies non-stop?  Refuses to accept voting results?  Insults parents of fallen soldiers?  Attacks racial and religious minorities?  I am sure I have missed a whole lot. 

Yeah if he weren't that / trying to destroy my country, then I could feel his pain.

[grumbler]

Insipid?  Really?  Because the thing is - the BNA Act (renamed in 1982 to the Constitution Act) is exactly the same thing as the US Constitution.  That is to say - they are both written constitutional documents setting out how the nation is to be run.

Do I understand that the US Constitution has special reverence in US political life?  Of course I do.  You can see it all the time in US politics.  I just don't understand why it is so, or I guess I reject the notion that it should be revered in the manner it is.  Which is not the same as saying it should be ignored - far from it.  The rule of law is a very dear principle to uphold.  But rather that if the Constitution isn't working in some manner people should be free to discuss amending it.

The appeal of the US Constitution isn't just that it is a written document setting out how the government is to be run, but that it is the Enlightenment social contract made manifest.  Compare the British north America Act/Constitution act's preamble:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:

And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America:[1]

with that of the US Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Canadian preamble is descriptive, while the US preamble is aspirational.  The Canadian constitution describes the power and structure being given to Canada by the British parliament; the US constitution describes the power and structure given to the federal government by its people.  Naturally, Americans are more attached to a document that they, the people, issued than the Canadians are by a document that the Canadian people watched the British government gave to the Canadian government.   The former situation is much more amenable to plausible myths than the latter.

[garbon]

I missed the debate (dang it!) but I read this morning that Hillary said she believes the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right to bear arms.  Is Laguish: outraged?

No. She knows what things you can't be against in America and so says what the masses need to hear. Doesn't mean she really is a proponent of it.

[derspiess]

I missed the debate (dang it!) but I read this morning that Hillary said she believes the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right to bear arms.  Is Laguish: outraged?

No. She knows what things you can't be against in America and so says what the masses need to hear. Doesn't mean she really is a proponent of it.

Hmm.  That makes me wonder if I'd be able to trust anything she says.

[grumbler]

Hmm.  That makes me wonder if I'd be able to trust anything she says.

She's a politician.  The only time you can trust politicians to be telling the truth is when they say things counter to their own interests (e.g. Trump boasting of sexually assaulting women he has just met or when Joe Biden told a Hillary rally that he knew they were not wildly enthusiastic about her candidacy).

[Jacob]

Oh good. If you were worried about Trump undermining American democracy from his refusal to commit to respecting the outcome of the election, he has made a major announcement to set the record straight.

He will totally accept the outcome of the election... if he wins.

"Ladies and gentleman, I wanna make a major announcement today," Trump said during a rally in Delaware, Ohio.
Story Continued Below

"I would like to promise and pledge, to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win," he declared, pointing directly to his supporters as they cheered him on.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-accept-election-230098

[Barrister]

Insipid?  Really?  Because the thing is - the BNA Act (renamed in 1982 to the Constitution Act) is exactly the same thing as the US Constitution.  That is to say - they are both written constitutional documents setting out how the nation is to be run.

Do I understand that the US Constitution has special reverence in US political life?  Of course I do.  You can see it all the time in US politics.  I just don't understand why it is so, or I guess I reject the notion that it should be revered in the manner it is.  Which is not the same as saying it should be ignored - far from it.  The rule of law is a very dear principle to uphold.  But rather that if the Constitution isn't working in some manner people should be free to discuss amending it.

The appeal of the US Constitution isn't just that it is a written document setting out how the government is to be run, but that it is the Enlightenment social contract made manifest.  Compare the British north America Act/Constitution act's preamble:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:

And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America:[1]

with that of the US Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Canadian preamble is descriptive, while the US preamble is aspirational.  The Canadian constitution describes the power and structure being given to Canada by the British parliament; the US constitution describes the power and structure given to the federal government by its people.  Naturally, Americans are more attached to a document that they, the people, issued than the Canadians are by a document that the Canadian people watched the British government gave to the Canadian government.   The former situation is much more amenable to plausible myths than the latter.

The Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982, is a little more prosaic (and nicely short!):

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

But I think you're being unfair.  The BNA Act wasn't merely granted from the UK Parliament as a gift from on high.  Instead it was freely negotiated between the provinces, who then wrote the final bill.  The bill was then presented to Queen Victoria and quickly passed in the House of Lords and in the Commons.  We have our own mythmaking about the Fathers of Confederation.

As well the words "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" are key - the UK 's unwritten constitution has always included the rights of people, going back to the Bill of Rights and even the Magna Carta.

[Jacob]

BB you are arguing that the BNA is very similar the US Constitution legal substance so you can then highlight how it is treated very differently in the two cultures, in response to a question about why the Constitution is viewed the way it is in the US.

What point are you trying to make?

[Valmy]

BB you are arguing that the BNA is very similar the US Constitution legal substance so you can then highlight how it is treated very differently in the two cultures, in response to a question about why the Constitution is viewed the way it is in the US.

What point are you trying to make?

Canada is cool to! Look at us!

[Barrister]

BB you are arguing that the BNA is very similar the US Constitution legal substance so you can then highlight how it is treated very differently in the two cultures, in response to a question about why the Constitution is viewed the way it is in the US.

What point are you trying to make?

A Constitution is just a piece of paper.

[Valmy]

BB you are arguing that the BNA is very similar the US Constitution legal substance so you can then highlight how it is treated very differently in the two cultures, in response to a question about why the Constitution is viewed the way it is in the US.

What point are you trying to make?

A Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Like Belgium's neutrality

All in good fun Beebs

[Jacob]

Canada is cool to! Look at us!

That's pretty uncool, unfortunately

[Jacob]

A Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Great. How does that at all illuminate the question about *why* the US Constitution is held in such high regard?'

The question is "why is the Constitution regarded as more than a piece of paper in the US," and your reply is "it's just a piece of paper."