Is the Federation a True Democracy? And How Did It Reach That Point?

[OneBuckFilms]

One thing that is unique to the US implementation is the limitations inherent in the Federal Constitution.

The Federal Government has specific rights that are enumerated in the Constitution, and anything else is literally reserved for the States and the People.

This means that the people will never be subservient to the Federal Government.

Old Blighty doesn't have that feature.

[T'Girl]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Locked into only a two party system, there is often no need for compromise or coalitions.

Well in some ways both the Republican and the Democratic parties are political coalitions. Compromise is necessary to hold the parties together.

[Sindatur]

T'Girl wrote:

---

Well in some ways both the Republican and the Democratic parties are political coalitions. Compromise is necessary to hold the parties together.

Yea, but, what they compromise on is Gaming the System, to keep others locked out, and you have to bow to the Establishment to get in.

Plus, when it comes to donors, many of them are the same donors on both sides of the aisle, so they serve those masters, rather than "We The People", because we have no choice but those two choices (True, it's better than no Choice, but, an Environment friendlier to Indpendents' chances would be an improvement, IMHO)

A Bi-Partisan Bill is often one that provides a Sweetheart Deal for a Corporate Interest who donates to Both Parties

[OneBuckFilms]

There is no way to ever avoid deal making or bargains in any system where negotiation or compromize is involved.

It's part of the price we pay for freedom.

It is also a byproduct of the fact that the House or the Senate have to get agreement on something for a law to pass.

Either representatives have the ability to argue and bargain to hopefully arrive at a good solution to a problem, or we have a dictatorship.

The failings and virtues of any representative government are inherent in the freedom of choice.

[MacLeod]

OneBuckFilms wrote:

---

One thing that is unique to the US implementation is the limitations inherent in the Federal Constitution.

The Federal Government has specific rights that are enumerated in the Constitution, and anything else is literally reserved for the States and the People.

This means that the people will never be subservient to the Federal Government.

Old Blighty doesn't have that feature.

Really, just because they don't exist in the form of a written consitution doesn't mean they don't exist in some form or another in one of the many laws that have been passed throughout the centuries.

[OneBuckFilms]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Really, just because they don't exist in the form of a written consitution doesn't mean they don't exist in some form or another in one of the many laws that have been passed throughout the centuries.

If they are not written into the constitution, they can theoretically be changed.

There is no constitutional protection in any other constitution I can think of.

The protections in law, and external to the constitutional framework, are a happy evolution of the democratic process, rather than a feature of the system in place.

[MacLeod]

Can't a constitution be changed/ammeneded/altered etc... ?

[OneBuckFilms]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Can't a constitution be changed/ammeneded/altered etc... ?

In most cases, not without revolution. The US is different in this regard, in that the methodology to change the Constitution is part of it's design (Amendment process).

But it requires pretty monumental hurdles to be overcome, far beyond quietly changing laws via routine votes.

[MacLeod]

^But the point is constitutions like a law can be changed, the exact mechanics of how it can be changed is a different issue. My point was that a constitution should not be set in stone and should grow and evolve to allow for changes in soceity/technology over the decades and centuries since it was written. After all what was acceptable 200 years ago might not be acceptable today.

[CorporalCaptain]

OneBuckFilms wrote:

---

In most cases, not without revolution. The US is different in this regard, in that the methodology to change the Constitution is part of it's design (Amendment process).

But it requires pretty monumental hurdles to be overcome, far beyond quietly changing laws via routine votes.

That's funny.

A cursory search reveals that, besides the United States, the following countries have amended their respective constitutions: Ireland, India, Canada, Australia (in the form of referenda), Russia, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Brazil, and I think I'll just stop looking right there because it's now become increasingly clear that you're probably wrong about this.

[OneBuckFilms]

I stand corrected on the ability to change a constitution, but I stand by the assertion that changing a Constitution is more difficult than changing laws.

[CorporalCaptain]

OneBuckFilms wrote:

---

I stand corrected on the ability to change a constitution, but I stand by the assertion that changing a Constitution is more difficult than changing laws.

I won't argue with that.

[OneBuckFilms]

So how many other Constitutions place significant limits on the powers of the Government?

[MacLeod]

OneBuckFilms wrote:

---

I stand corrected on the ability to change a constitution, but I stand by the assertion that changing a Constitution is more difficult than changing laws.

Perhaps how easy or hard it is depends on the constitution in question. Some might be easier to change than others. So yes some specific consitutions could be harder to change whilst others are easier to change.

[OneBuckFilms]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Perhaps how easy or hard it is depends on the constitution in question. Some might be easier to change than others. So yes some specific consitutions could be harder to change whilst others are easier to change.

If it's too easy to change a Constitution, then that Constitution becomes too vulterable to mob rule, or political fads of the day.

It SHOULD be hard, but it should be possible, ideally, when it really matters.