• Coasting0942@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Guys, they’d be overjoyed their government the hammered out in overnight binge drinking sessions lasted 200+ years.

    All the present problems are our problems. They gave us the amendment system for a reason.

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

      Not universally. Jefferson would have been horrified that the same government he established was still trucking along. 50 years was the longest he wanted it to last, and called for dramatic change at that point

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

        Do you honestly want to live in a country where the established foundations of government changed every 50 years? That kind of chaos and instability would be crushing. There are places like that right now, and first world countries they are not.

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

          Can you imagine if that change happened during like 2018/19 when the government was full of people I liked slightly less than the people in their right now? That would have sucked.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They also wrote that system not expecting it to be able to be gummed up by as little as 2% of the population because of how stupid we were about drawing state borders

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like that comment severely lacks nuance but I’m also not sure how best to state the problem in few words so I haven’t downvoted.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well for starters that’s a disproportionate 3 electoral votes for president

          It takes as little as less than a fifth of the population to elect a president if they embark on a small states crusade.

          As for constitutional amendments, it takes THREE QUARTERS of the states to approve an amendment, meaning that starting from the smallest states and working our way up, less than 7 million people can decide for the other 343 million that an amendment doesn’t pass.

          And that’s all assuming state action reflects popular will within the states, which it often doesn’t.

  • verstra@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And overwhelmed by the number of people willing to discuss nuaced socio-political problems of states and governments.

  • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A few of our founding fathers were based and are remembered for their true merits as people.

    And the rest were just the most rich and powerful people around at the time. They had to start a war and a new country in order to get away with defrauding England when they joined in on this settler colonial project. They stopped slavery from ending. They chased wealth and valor, and designed the country for their ends.

    WE deserve a new constitution like every other modern country.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Their project was in part to legitimize the transfer of power from the nobility to the elite merchant and “gentleman” farmer class. They were very much a product of their time, just like you and I are today.