• AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Maybe it’s time you guys rewrote your constitution into something more modern instead of treating the old one as a holy scripture handed down from Olympus.

    But I doubt that’ll ever happen.

        • 4grams@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Why do people pretend like a piece of paper matters. Trump has all the power and there are no checks and balances left. Imagine if he breaks the constitution, are zombie Washington, Jefferson and Franklin going to rise from the grave and enact vengeance?

          Every rule that’s been broken was unbreakable until it was broken.

    • Llamatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      I’d like the 1st amendment to be altered slightly. Sure, everyone should be free to speak without government sanction but that shouldn’t mean freedom to lie. Fox and the rightwing have been abusing the shit out of it for years.

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        This is a terrible, horrible idea. It would give the government the power to censor anyone and anything, and all they have to do is claim that the thing they are censoring is a lie.

        • Llamatron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Well treating lies to be as valid as fact has brought you half a population living in their own reality and Trump as president.

          • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Placing exceptions on the freedom of speech does not mean that lies will get silenced. It means that whatever the government wants to censor will get silenced. Because the government will be the one who does the censoring. Or, if the censoring is not done by the government directly - the government will still be the one appointing the organization who does the censoring.

            The freedom of speech must be protected - even if it means letting bad agents spread their lies uncensored. Because if you try to give the government the power to censor them, you’ll end up with a new Department of Truth led by Alex Jones (who is now unoccupied)

    • ZMoney@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      The document is open to interpretation. It can mean anything you want it to mean. For example, the first amendment is used to guarantee that unlimited amounts of money can be spent on election campaigns. So I’m not sure rewriting the thing would accomplish anything other than forcing the oligarchs to figure out new legal loopholes.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    5 days ago

    My teacher in middle school did specifically call out that it would take a project over several decades to co-opt the system.

    Well, they’ve been going after the judgeships for decades.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    6 days ago

    A lot of people are being shown that a lot of stuff that kept their country going was decorum, shame and tradition, not rule of law.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      Interesting take on The Social Contract.

      But basically when your entire socoety is disingenuous to some extent, shit falls apart eventually.

  • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Regulatory capture and citizens united both exist to undo those checks and balances. No system is immune to corruption.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    Chink in that armor was allow people without education, attention, and just plain common sense to vote

    • LemmyFeed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s a slippery slope my friend. Who gets to decide who is qualified enough to vote? What happens when they decide only select few can vote?

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Definitely is a sticky situation. But since democracy is already dead, it could be done via education monitoring. For instance, you get low grades often like D’s or worse or don’t even show up to class enough to pass, your activity is recorded and you don’t get to register to vote. Maintain a C across the board and you do. Do all this monitoring through elementary and secondary. If some go through college, they get auto-registered. Doing all this during younger formative years could vastly improve the voter pools.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Kinda why the Electoral College exists.

      But it was too cool to hate on it.

      Because the people running the game know without it the game becomes who has the best propaganda.