Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(46,172 posts)
104. My "slavish" devotion isn't to the politics of 1787, it's to our particular constitutional system
Mon Jan 9, 2017, 05:06 PM
Jan 2017

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2017, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)

that, warts and all (and some of those warts include the difficult process for amending it as well as the outmoded electoral college) has worked well, albeit slowly at times. Yes, because it is slow moving, we've had years before certain reforms could be made (and others that still haven't been made). But we've also avoided the awful consequences of all the bad changes that would have occurred if we had a constitution that, like those of some countries, can be changed as frequently as some people change hair styles. The list of odious constitutional amendments that haven't been adopted is long and most definitely does not bend towards justice.

I don't know how old you are or how long your memory is. Mine is long enough to know that this isn't the first election that feels like the end of the world. Trump is horrid. Trump is dangerous. Trump is a nightmare. All true.

But I felt the same way when Richard Nixon was elected, particularly in 1972, when 20 million more of my fellow citizens chose Nixon over McGovern. At a time when we were in a war that had killed over 50,000 of my peers and torn the country in two in a way that you can't imagine if you didn't live through it. And yet within a couple of years, the Democrats were back in the WH, only to suffer another devastating blow when Reagan was elected winning 44 states- again, it felt like the end of the world, particularly when he was re-elected by an even larger margin. But by 1992 we had the WH again, and after losing it narrowly in 2000 and narrowly failing to regain it in 2004, we won it back in 2008 and kept it for 8 years. Does it suck that we lost it again, to as someone as unfit as Trump? Of course it does, but knowing that unlike some of those years where I was in the group that fell 20 million or eight million or 17 million votes short this time more people voted for Clinton that Trump gives me reason to think that we'll survive this debacle as well.

Now, I know you'll think that I've just proved your point -- that a result in which we win the national popular vote but lose the election is anti-democratic and thus we need to reform the system. And I don't disagree. The system we have is antiquated and in today's world, in which people are more mobile than ever, where nationwide communications are instantaneous, where state boundaries mean little, the old ways should change. But I live in the real world and I'm not going to throw my hands up and say that if we don't change the system we're doomed.

There is a lot of doomsday nonsense on this board now. Yes, as I said, Trump is a dangerous guy and he has facilitators and enablers all around him. But we've survived dangerous times with dangerous leaders before. And I'm confident that we will again. So instead of declaring the end of the world is nigh unless we change the system, knowing full well that we can't change the system before whenever "nigh" comes, I will choose to do what I did in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and the 2000's: spend my money and work my ass off to get Democrats elected, starting with my own local member of Congress and Senators as well as my state and local level officials.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Your point? NobodyHere Jan 2017 #1
The point? SCVDem Jan 2017 #10
you're swimming upstream, with the slavish, small-thinkers here. nt TheFrenchRazor Jan 2017 #21
amen! eniwetok Jan 2017 #51
Might have to think about that myself. Cali can stand on its own 6th biggest econ. in the world... brush Jan 2017 #28
'it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government! elleng Jan 2017 #2
How do we do it? pangaia Jan 2017 #4
With patience and difficulty. elleng Jan 2017 #5
secede. there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it. nt TheFrenchRazor Jan 2017 #20
That didn't work well last time dumbcat Jan 2017 #24
The Supreme Court disagrees. onenote Jan 2017 #26
it's a tortured decision... eniwetok Jan 2017 #40
Every decision that someone disagrees with onenote Jan 2017 #44
have you even read Texas v or Heller? eniwetok Jan 2017 #45
Yes. Next question? onenote Jan 2017 #46
then please explain how it's not a tortured decision n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #54
No thanks. As I said, every decision that one disagrees with is tortured onenote Jan 2017 #55
figures you can't back up your claim. n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #58
Figures you can't figure out the point I'm making. onenote Jan 2017 #59
sure I do... eniwetok Jan 2017 #78
Thanks for proving my point. You "get" what you want to get. I get it. onenote Jan 2017 #79
Hey, embrace your antidemocratic beliefs!!! eniwetok Jan 2017 #82
pray tell, why wasn't there an amendment banning secession? eniwetok Jan 2017 #81
1869 case, not 1969. I know you'd want to correct that. onenote Jan 2017 #83
oops, we both messed up... it's 1868 eniwetok Jan 2017 #90
there's a particular level of irony in you posing that question... LanternWaste Jan 2017 #92
Not petty. Just trying to correct the record for those who might think you were referring onenote Jan 2017 #95
Why wasn't there an amendment to ban secession? eniwetok Jan 2017 #91
Jefferson Davis wanted a trial to establish the right to secession Yupster Jan 2017 #27
I don't feel sorry at all for that traitor. Fu_k him and all of those white supremacists bastards. brush Jan 2017 #29
Those white supremasist bastards Yupster Jan 2017 #34
I repeat, fu_k all those white supremacist bastards. Being 99% of anything doesn't excuse it. brush Jan 2017 #37
Even the majority of the most anti-slavery people Yupster Jan 2017 #66
You sound like you're defending it. Again, fu_k white supremacists then and fu_k Bannon and ... brush Jan 2017 #68
what about non-white people at the time? JonLP24 Jan 2017 #76
The Founders must have seen it as the treestar Jan 2017 #33
That's what the Confederates thought Yupster Jan 2017 #25
and yet there is NO prohibition against secession n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #36
No, you are right Yupster Jan 2017 #69
texas v white tries to... eniwetok Jan 2017 #70
Madison wanted to add to the Constitution... eniwetok Jan 2017 #35
institute new government secession and form a new government. there it is nt msongs Jan 2017 #3
And this famous jurist....... suston96 Jan 2017 #6
Agreed. Game on. democratisphere Jan 2017 #7
he also wrote... 0rganism Jan 2017 #8
It'll probably take something like the republican recession of 2007 - 2009 or depression ffr Jan 2017 #16
heh heh; that's pretty much how it works. nt TheFrenchRazor Jan 2017 #19
we sure as hell handmade34 Jan 2017 #9
I was looking for some threads about this article and see very little. badhair77 Jan 2017 #64
Followed by: sl8 Jan 2017 #11
We may have to return to a confederation. roamer65 Jan 2017 #12
We won't have any gov't if we don't do something about the environment. YOHABLO Jan 2017 #13
Amen to that! 2naSalit Jan 2017 #14
How'd that work out for the South? X_Digger Jan 2017 #15
Post removed Post removed Jan 2017 #18
I'm clever enough to know that proposing secession is an asinine idea. X_Digger Jan 2017 #22
California actually has a case for it if you think about it. Their votes don't even count in the ... brush Jan 2017 #31
Was Lincoln's war legal? eniwetok Jan 2017 #39
So you're really taking the side of Jefferson Davis, et al? X_Digger Jan 2017 #41
ROTF... even the Articles could be amended... if enough people eniwetok Jan 2017 #47
Aww, you mean you have to convince most people that changed is needed? Yes, that's hard work. X_Digger Jan 2017 #53
so you you believe 4% of the population should be able to stop all reforms eniwetok Jan 2017 #57
I believe that fundamental changes to our system of government should req almost unanimous consent. X_Digger Jan 2017 #60
RED HERRING ALERT!! eniwetok Jan 2017 #62
Don't like the logical conclusions your ill-thought-out proposals would create? Tough shit. X_Digger Jan 2017 #65
you're evading the math.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #71
"reformproof" ! 27 amendments. How's that math? X_Digger Jan 2017 #73
Not ONE amendment reformed a core antidemocratic feature in the Constitution... eniwetok Jan 2017 #74
So if they don't do something you want, they don't count? They're not "serious reform"?? X_Digger Jan 2017 #75
moving the goal post? eniwetok Jan 2017 #77
27 amendments is "virtually reformproof"? What kind of reality is that? X_Digger Jan 2017 #80
Hey sport... I'm not the one with the bizarre contradiction... eniwetok Jan 2017 #86
Wait, it's "virtually reformproof" but it's too easy? Make up your mind. X_Digger Jan 2017 #105
still having problems with the math? And do you know what "democracy" is? eniwetok Jan 2017 #106
Free clue: it's right there in the name. United States. X_Digger Jan 2017 #108
how soon we forget... eniwetok Jan 2017 #109
Yes, dear, you go ahead and tilt at that windmill. *pat *pat *pat n/t X_Digger Jan 2017 #110
EVASION ALERT!!! eniwetok Jan 2017 #112
Awfully far out on that limb, be careful. X_Digger Jan 2017 #118
there you go again.. eniwetok Jan 2017 #120
Is your definition of "antidemocratic" like your definition of "reformproof"?? X_Digger Jan 2017 #122
in the democratic world YOURS is the fringe idea eniwetok Jan 2017 #123
of the smallest 13 states (I assume thats where you get your "4% can block") 6 voted Democratic Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #117
it doesn't matter if it's probable... only if it's possible eniwetok Jan 2017 #119
antidemocratic government is insidious... eniwetok Jan 2017 #124
If you want a more democratic system you are going to have to move out of the US Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #125
the civic religion eniwetok Jan 2017 #127
Good points, totally agree Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #128
despicable accusation eniwetok Jan 2017 #48
Your proposal for California to threaten secession was a nonsensical pipe dream onenote Jan 2017 #84
Sure it's long shot... so WTF are your plans to force reform... eniwetok Jan 2017 #87
well I've eliminated the really stupid plans, which is something you ought to consider doing onenote Jan 2017 #88
thanks for the laughs! eniwetok Jan 2017 #89
Your sense of humor is interesting. onenote Jan 2017 #96
nothing happens from inaction and cowardice... eniwetok Jan 2017 #98
More like taking the side of Timothy Pickering. or William Lloyd Garison SQUEE Jan 2017 #97
What then are specific prohibitions that would re-interpret the conflict as illegal LanternWaste Jan 2017 #93
isn't the real question was secession illegal? eniwetok Jan 2017 #101
so now we're adopting Tea Party sloganeering? onenote Jan 2017 #17
sorry, the system can't be reformed in any basic way.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #38
Sorry, but not going to re-hash that debate with you onenote Jan 2017 #43
if the amendment formula isn't antidemocratic... please define what makes it democratic. eniwetok Jan 2017 #49
Apparently you didn't understand my post onenote Jan 2017 #52
sorry, I'm not a slavish adherent to a defective system... eniwetok Jan 2017 #61
What is the objective and peer-reviewed evidence LanternWaste Jan 2017 #94
I suspect you're not interested in evidence... eniwetok Jan 2017 #99
And this: kentuck Jan 2017 #23
conversely... government WITHOUT the consent of the governed... is illegitimate n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #50
And until the governed change the system, then this is a government with the consent onenote Jan 2017 #56
amusing catch 22 eniwetok Jan 2017 #102
My "slavish" devotion isn't to the politics of 1787, it's to our particular constitutional system onenote Jan 2017 #104
TRANSLATION: eniwetok Jan 2017 #107
When did I suggest that you suggested we not have a constitutional system? onenote Jan 2017 #111
can't have it both ways... eniwetok Jan 2017 #113
what was the point of claiming... eniwetok Jan 2017 #114
Let me try, again, to explain onenote Jan 2017 #126
This message was self-deleted by its author JTFrog Jan 2017 #30
This document is an "address of greviences" to his Majesty King George ...or indictment Historic NY Jan 2017 #32
the term of art is "petition for redress of grievances" Bucky Jan 2017 #100
That's ironic, LWolf Jan 2017 #42
It would be nice if the alternative to one kind of destructive government wasn't a different kind yurbud Jan 2017 #63
in our system the people can't learn from mistakes.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #72
our system doesn't care about the will of the people. those you refer to in your last sentence... yurbud Jan 2017 #85
I think that is the heart of the matter ymetca Jan 2017 #103
I think that just happened. Or will on the 20th. nt TeamPooka Jan 2017 #67
Will some DUers start embracing "2nd Amendment remedies"? hughee99 Jan 2017 #115
there are no second amendment "remedies" eniwetok Jan 2017 #121
K&R Jeffersons Ghost Jan 2017 #116
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jefferson wrote in the De...»Reply #104