• HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The forefathers had some of the most sensible ideology in the history of humankind. What other country established limits on the power of their government as a foundational document?

    They’re still very sound principles to this day.

    Unfortunately our current government doesn’t concern themselves with those principles.

    But I will agree with what was likely the point of this post, which is that the Constitution is not and was never supposed to be timeless, and the founders would agree with that too.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many constitutions of many modern liberal democracies are modeled or inspired off of the US Constitution. Though now newer ones are modeled instead of its derivatives (kind of lending credence to this thread’s message of, maybe we should update the constitution more).

    • nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      established limits on the power of their government as a foundational document

      I’d argue that’s a blessing and a curse.

      The framers were coming off a monarchy. They saw government power as dangerous and thought that it had to be limited. But they didn’t really consider that other groups might gain greater power than governments.

      Unfortunately, we have exactly that problem. Organizations with sufficient money often rival governments for power.

      The checks and balances that were designed to protect ordinary citizens from government also protect large multinational corporations and ultra rich families and individuals. The result is often that those powerful non-government actors can often subvert government and ultimately cause the same, or even worse, problems.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The result is often that those powerful non-government actors can often subvert government and ultimately cause the same, or even worse, problems.

        Only if we treat corporations like they are citizens/people, and money as speech.

        We could legislate those away in a heartbeat, if “We the People” wanted to.

        • nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I sort of agree but I think it’s much more complicated than that.

          Our current legal framework have any specific mechanisms for reigning in the power of powerful non-government actors. At best, a bunch of people can realize that such an actor is doing something shady, then ask their legislators to do something about it, then hope that enough other people have asked their legislators the same thing. People can try to accelerate that by creating awareness campaigns (essentially adopting some of the power of such actors).

          The problem is the well heeled actors can do all the same things much faster. When some rich private organization decides that they want a change, they can speak directly to legislators across state lines, they can openly or secretly fund massive (dis)information campaigns. “We the people” are at a severe disadvantage against that.

          Consider that there are several initiatives that the majority of US citizens support that US legislators still refuse to implement.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I sort of agree but I think it’s much more complicated than that.

            Complicated doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

            Our current legal framework have any specific mechanisms for reigning in the power of powerful non-government actors.

            It does, they could re-enable Citizens United for a start.

            Without going down the rabbit hole and getting stuck in the weeds, generally speaking, Congress can pass any laws it wants, and as long as they’re constitutional they affect us.

            Consider that there are several initiatives that the majority of US citizens support that US legislators still refuse to implement.

            Well if we voted in legislators who would implement the initiatives we wanted, then it wouldn’t be a problem, but that’s a whole different subject to discuss.

            • nednobbins@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We can and should try but we’re going to be doing so against a much better funded lobbying group. Those lobbyists can fight that consistently while we try to maintain concentration across countless other political issues.

              The Citizens United decision was years ago. Rage against it has moved on and many don’t even know about it. Remember Net Neutrality? We had the regulations and media companies still managed to get rid of it.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Citizens United decision was years ago. Rage against it has moved on and many don’t even know about it.

                Actually I still hear people talk about it now and then, and I mentioned it myself as well. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that people have moved on, it’s just on the back burner, waiting for the next Congress that hopefully has a more decisive percentage so more voting can be done.

                And besides, my point in mentioning it was to show that you can affect change and curb individuals with excessive power who can corrupt the process for everyone else via new laws and brought back old laws.

                Remember Net Neutrality? We had the regulations and media companies still managed to get rid of it.

                Actually, it was the former president who installed a chairperson of the FCC that got rid of it.

                Also, Net Neutrality is coming back, since the current President put in a new chairperson to lead the FCC.

                Which party you vote for does matter.


                Responding to your overall tone of your opinions, the thinking that change will never happen is not correct.

                Things just go back and forth, because we’re divided nation, but things do get done, and everyone should have a voice and how that’s done, even if it means to change takes longer to happen.

                • nednobbins@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It would be a herculean effort to change Citizens United. It was a Supreme Court decision. So it would require either swapping out several justices or convincing a large number of Republicans to join in on a legislative change. The Democrats had both chambers and the White House since then and either it was still out of reach or just not a priority.

                  I’ve also heard rumors that Net Neutrality is coming back but it hasn’t happened yet. We handle it at the regulatory level rather than the legislative level. So even if Biden does manage to get it re-instated, it will likely disappear again with the next Republican president. Policies like that need to be consistent or they don’t really work. Otherwise we’re essentially telling large media companies, “You can totally mess with competitors access capabilities but only every other presidential term.” That give them plenty of time to bankrupt competitors.

                  My tone isn’t meant to suggest that change will never happen. Change is inevitable. Any system will favor some changes over others. Powerful entities are pretty good at tilting the playing field in their favor. Citizens United is just one such example. Over time that creates an environment that favors those powerful entities over less powerful entities. It’s a self re-inforcing decision in that it makes it easier for groups like Citizens United to promote legislation sympathetic to it’s own power.

                  Which party you vote for does matter but it’s not everything. Democrats where happy to join with Republicans in passing the PATRIOT act. After Ross Perot had a non-trivial showing they were eager to join up with Republicans in pushing 3rd party candidates out of the debates.

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It would be a herculean effort to change Citizens United. It was a Supreme Court decision. So it would require either swapping out several justices or convincing a large number of Republicans to join in on a legislative change. The Democrats had both chambers and the White House since then and either it was still out of reach or just not a priority.

                    It got pased once, it can get past again.

                    You’re talking like it can never happen no matter what, but since it has happened, it could happen again.

                    The next Congress can have a very different vote makeup than the current one we have.

                    I’ve also heard rumors that Net Neutrality is coming back but it hasn’t happened yet.

                    I don’t think the new commissioner has been sworn in yet, but it’s supposed to happen soon.

                    We handle it at the regulatory level rather than the legislative level. So even if Biden does manage to get it re-instated, it will likely disappear again with the next Republican president.

                    Maybe, Maybe not. A lot of laws that are controversial on party lines get established and stay that way, welfare, social security, etc.

                    Policies like that need to be consistent or they don’t really work. Otherwise we’re essentially telling large media companies, “You can totally mess with competitors access capabilities but only every other presidential term.” That give them plenty of time to bankrupt competitors.

                    You’re assuming a cyclical cycle between the two parties being in power, which is not always true.

                    Also as generations come and go, things do change and do settle down. It just takes time sometimes, again generationally level time.

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The checks and balances that were designed to protect ordinary citizens from government also protect large multinational corporations and ultra rich families and individuals.

        How do you figure?

        • nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The constitution doesn’t recognize groups of people as anything more than a group of people. Even if they’ve set up mechanisms that greatly magnify their power. It also doesn’t recognize any power imbalance. It just lumps everyone together and treats everyone as equal. (Some exceptions may apply)

            • nednobbins@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s both. Any policy has downsides.

              I’ll use one of the internet’s current favorite villains as an example. If the Lemmy admins decide to kick out some set of users, it won’t have much effect on the world. When Elon decides who is and isn’t allowed to have an account on his servers, it can have a massive impact on legislation and public behavior. Our laws mostly treat those the same.

    • lingh0e@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I will agree with what was likely the point of this post, which is that the Constitution is not and was never supposed to be timeless, and the founders would agree with that too.

      Joe Pesci agrees too.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, the US Constitution is a second attempt. Operating briefly under the Articles of Confederation outright did not work because the federal government couldn’t fund itself. They threw that away and created the present system which almost outright doesn’t work. That’s progress.