If I was writing a new constitution, why would it need amendments?
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
12 points (87.5% liked)
Asklemmy
44151 readers
1565 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
None... Because it would have been just written. Amendments are changes/additions to an existing document
This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You donβt list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after itβs ratified.
Ofcourse, but I think it's clear what they meant - what would you do different compared to the old/current constitution if you could write a new one. It's an interesting question.
USA:
-
Prison slavery abolished
-
Elected judges with term limits
-
Ranked Choice Voting
-
Bodily autonomy as a right (no banning abortions, gender transitioning, bionics)
-
Separation of Church and State as the actual law of the land
-
Add federal referendums, all constitutional amendments are referendums (but amendments still require 75% of the population)
-
Districts are now no bigger than 50,000 people and they all get a representitive, and all the recognized Amerindian tribes also get their own reps (an agreement was made with the Cherokee for them to get one but it was never fulfilled)
-
2nd Amendment replaced with something that directly allows federal government to regulate but not ban firearms.
I wonder if the body autonomy thing would work against for you mandating vaccines
Iβm not big on elected judges. Iβd rather keep them appointed so they wouldnβt have to pander to anyone.
Appointed judges already failed to prevent that.
Yeah I know, but elections are an overcompensation. Adding term limits and throwing in some anti-corruption reforms would be better I think.
i wouldn't go with ranked choice voting. all the systems i know of have their own flaws: IRV can have really weird results with more than three candidates, Borda count disproportionately favors the moderate, and the Condorcet method can completely fail to select a winner. instead, what about approval voting, where instead of ranking candidates, you just check as many boxes as you want?
and the Condorcet method can completely fail to select a winner.
That one's not a flaw. All elections can suffer from ties. Pure Condorcet just makes it obvious when there's a tie (and this is very rare). There are a bunch of Condorcet completion methods for resolving the tie.
I am actually quite happy with Germany's constitution.
What do you think about the role of your president? Would you get rid of them entirely, or would you give them more powers?
Keep them as they are. I don't think we've ever had this position seriously abused and it's a decent last line of defense ~~if~~when the brown shit hits the fan again.
Obviously they can't prevent the public hurting itself again in the long term but they can however at least mitigate that happening to some degree for a little while. That can be enough to smooth over some short-term crisis and might move people to realise their situation a bit better because it'd be a highly, highly exceptional thing for them to step in.
(For those not in the know: Next to being the representative for the state (does rememberance speeches, shakes hands, etc.), the German president handles some "administrative" stuff in the government without much say and they have the power to effectively stop the legislative until their term is over by refusing to sign new bills.
The latter has never occured and single bills have only been "vetoed" only 9 times in total. Mostly because of formal issues such as the bill not actually having been approved by the Bundesrat or bills that are obviously in conflict with the Grundgesetz and would get overturned by the judicative immediately.)
Agreed. I like how the German presidents have managed to keep an aura of respect (or so it at least seems to me) by staying out of daily politics. Here in Czechia the presidents have been quite vocal about their opinions which kind of defeated their role as a unifying head of state.
Keep them as they are. I don't think we've ever had this position abused and it's a decent last line of defense if the brown shit hits the fan again.
Obviously can't prevent the public hurting itself again but it can at least mitigate some degree of extreme corruption for a little while which can be enough for some people to realise their situation a bit better.
Rule 1: Authoritarian shitcunts get the rope
Rule 2: Be excellent to each other (with the exception of rule 1)
Rule 3: Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms is now a store
poverty is prohibited.
Punishment: heavy fees
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
Anatole France
A right of water, shelter, food, medical care and schooling. A right to live free of violence, a right of basic equality, for equal justice, a right to privacy, and a right to be forgotten.
I'd add in a right to connectivity. Not having the internet is a giant disadvantage in today's society.
But otherwise, your list is top notch!
2a, but simplified for polticians and other toddlers.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No matter how big or small, deadly or not, this is ironclad.
That amendment lets me purchase nuclear armaments.
I could see an interpretation of this where the government doesn't make it illegal for you to own any weapon but makes selling them illegal. After all, it's not infringing on your right to have them, it just regulates the market for weapons, which isn't forbidden by the letter of the law.
True that is a way around it but then it would basically have the exact problem the 2nd amendment already has, Licensing can already be used on the 2nd amendment and many other amendments. For it to really work you would need to add paragraphs, probably a whole book to the amendment of what is and is not covered, and yet somehow have it be future proof too.
"No matter how futuristic or advanced guns become" because I'm sick of hearing "bUt ThEsE gUnS wErEn'T iNvEnTeD yEt!"