It is my sincere belief that constitutional theory peaked in 1949. I am of the opinion that the Grundgesetz, or "Basic Law," of Germany is the ideal form for a federal constitution to take. It provides the perfect balance between efficiency and caution, creating a single body that has democratic legitimacy and limiting it only inasmuch as 1) it must be bound by the constitution and 2) when entities other than the federal government are involved, those entities get a say. It tends towards a multiparty system where coalition-building is necessary for governing, it prevents excessive snap elections and requires that all no-confidence votes be constructive, and in 1991 it successfully integrated a whole other country.
The fundamental problem with the American constitution, as I see it, is this: two separate entities both claim democratic legitimacy, Congress and the President. So, when government is divided, both entities claim to be exercising the people's will while acting at cross-purposes. This leads to gridlock in the short term, but in the long term this leads to the concentration of power in the most efficient branch, the executive. In the long run dictatorship is actually more likely, as the people lose interest in Congress (they don't do anything anyway) and place all their eggs in the Presidential basket.
Stemming from this is the problem of the Supreme Court. One party has become bound and determined to never let the other appoint a Supreme Court justice, and the other has followed suit. One party has an inherent advantage in the Senate, the other has a narrow but growing majority of the population and a majority of the economy behind them. The logical conclusion to this dilemma is one of two things: either the Republicans so dominate the Supreme Court that it becomes a rubber stamp on the GOP's agenda, or a Democratic president declares that "Clarence Thomas has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Either way we see another check on the power of the President fall by the wayside.
Oh, also lifetime appointments is a terrible system when the SCOTUS has to talk about technology - it's shocking the number of bad decisions that a bunch of technologically-illiterate octogenarians can make, going all the way back to the 1920s when the Supreme Court ruled that movies weren't protected by the fucking first amendment. Fucking movies.
The fact is that the United States is a diverse country - ethnically, racially, religiously, politically,
... keep reading on reddit β‘Bottom
Just wanted to get your opinions on a world parliament elected via universal suffrage, even though it remains unlikely.
A boy today is a well written 41 pages report on different disadvantages and inequalities affecting men and boys in the current United Kingdom that need more attention from politicians, think tanks, media etc .. what are the issues ? as stated in page 05:
- Boys lag behind girls at every stage of education and boys are more likely to be excluded from school
- An estimated 13.2% of men aged 16 to 24 years were NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training) and for women the proportion was 10%
- Suicide death rates among men are three times higher than for women
- Life expectancy at birth is 3.7 years lower for men than women β 79.4 for men and 83.1 for women
- Men are more likely to die of a cancer or Covid, with mortality for the latter widening for working age adults (Covid mortality rates for working age men are 31 deaths per 100,000 compared with equivalent female death rates of 17 per thousand, respectively)
- Among rough sleepers 83% are male
- Men make up 96% of the prison population
These statistics are widely available and known yet there is no action by policymakers, as the report mention "there is a proposal for a Womenβs Health Strategy, which is welcome, but no plans for an equivalent for men and boys, even though men and boys have specific health issues to overcome too."
Despite the fact that men live shorter than women and are more likely to commit suicide, policymakers created a health strategy for women and only women. Men and Boys Coalition and other men's advocates asked for the creation of similar strategy for men but the response was negative. why ? why would the government health strategy ignore the group that is suffering the most ?!
Read the full report here.
I know there are certain limitations on a state's ability to self-govern - in particular, American citizens are guaranteed a republican form of government. But there haven't been many opportunities for the courts to decide what that actually means.
Could a state pass a constitutional amendment establishing a parliamentary system, in which the executive is appointed by the legislature and they are able to call snap elections?
^
And no, I do not believe the electoral college is necessary for presidential system. I don't believe other countries in Latin America have the electoral college.
