Thanks for your article, Tony. I agree that Rana is an invaluable resource. I also agree with your conclusion that the existing Constitution won't help us stop Trump, and that we need to fight for a real democracy.
Isn't calling the US Constitution "nigh impossible to amend" and its amendment process "unworkable" a stretch given that there have been 27 amendments? Constitutions are supposed to be difficult to amend; if they were as easy to amend as mere laws they would be pointless.
Sweden can amend its most basic constitutional rules by a majority vote in two succeeding legislatures. It does not rely on separation of powers or super-majorities. It relies on proportional democratic representation to govern itself.
Yes but, like I said, twice in a row, at several years of distance and hence likely with a different composition of parliament and a changed political context? That *is* setting a higher bar, although not as high as requiring a supermajority.
Great piece, very insightful, and love that it provides a path forward away from the valley of despair.
Yes, defend democracy, not America’s undemocratic Constitution.
Thanks for your article, Tony. I agree that Rana is an invaluable resource. I also agree with your conclusion that the existing Constitution won't help us stop Trump, and that we need to fight for a real democracy.
Isn't calling the US Constitution "nigh impossible to amend" and its amendment process "unworkable" a stretch given that there have been 27 amendments? Constitutions are supposed to be difficult to amend; if they were as easy to amend as mere laws they would be pointless.
Sweden can amend its most basic constitutional rules by a majority vote in two succeeding legislatures. It does not rely on separation of powers or super-majorities. It relies on proportional democratic representation to govern itself.
"in two succeeding legislatures" and hence at several years of interval is still a significantly higher bar to clear.
Significantly higher than 3/4 of the fifty states? I don't think so. Super-majorities are a higher bar than simple majorities.
Yes but, like I said, twice in a row, at several years of distance and hence likely with a different composition of parliament and a changed political context? That *is* setting a higher bar, although not as high as requiring a supermajority.
Compelling arguments here. What about other democracies, in Western Europe, for example? Are they functionally more democratic?