11
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

If I was writing a new constitution, why would it need amendments?

[-] weenaak@vlemmy.net 9 points 1 year ago

None... Because it would have been just written. Amendments are changes/additions to an existing document

[-] annegreen@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.

[-] ProtonBadger@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Ofcourse, but I think it's clear what they meant - what would you do different compared to the old/current constitution if you could write a new one. It's an interesting question.

[-] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

USA:

  • Prison slavery abolished

  • Elected judges with term limits

  • Ranked Choice Voting

  • Bodily autonomy as a right (no banning abortions, gender transitioning, bionics)

  • Separation of Church and State as the actual law of the land

  • Add federal referendums, all constitutional amendments are referendums (but amendments still require 75% of the population)

  • Districts are now no bigger than 50,000 people and they all get a representitive, and all the recognized Amerindian tribes also get their own reps (an agreement was made with the Cherokee for them to get one but it was never fulfilled)

  • 2nd Amendment replaced with something that directly allows federal government to regulate but not ban firearms.

[-] abejfehr@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I wonder if the body autonomy thing would work against for you mandating vaccines

[-] Chrisosaur@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

I’m not big on elected judges. I’d rather keep them appointed so they wouldn’t have to pander to anyone.

[-] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

Appointed judges already failed to prevent that.

[-] Chrisosaur@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah I know, but elections are an overcompensation. Adding term limits and throwing in some anti-corruption reforms would be better I think.

[-] salarua@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i wouldn't go with ranked choice voting. all the systems i know of have their own flaws: IRV can have really weird results with more than three candidates, Borda count disproportionately favors the moderate, and the Condorcet method can completely fail to select a winner. instead, what about approval voting, where instead of ranking candidates, you just check as many boxes as you want?

[-] Psephomancy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

and the Condorcet method can completely fail to select a winner.

That one's not a flaw. All elections can suffer from ties. Pure Condorcet just makes it obvious when there's a tie (and this is very rare). There are a bunch of Condorcet completion methods for resolving the tie.

[-] Bjoern_Tantau@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

I am actually quite happy with Germany's constitution.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

What do you think about the role of your president? Would you get rid of them entirely, or would you give them more powers?

[-] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Keep them as they are. I don't think we've ever had this position seriously abused and it's a decent last line of defense ~~if~~when the brown shit hits the fan again.

Obviously they can't prevent the public hurting itself again in the long term but they can however at least mitigate that happening to some degree for a little while. That can be enough to smooth over some short-term crisis and might move people to realise their situation a bit better because it'd be a highly, highly exceptional thing for them to step in.

(For those not in the know: Next to being the representative for the state (does rememberance speeches, shakes hands, etc.), the German president handles some "administrative" stuff in the government without much say and they have the power to effectively stop the legislative until their term is over by refusing to sign new bills.
The latter has never occured and single bills have only been "vetoed" only 9 times in total. Mostly because of formal issues such as the bill not actually having been approved by the Bundesrat or bills that are obviously in conflict with the Grundgesetz and would get overturned by the judicative immediately.)

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed. I like how the German presidents have managed to keep an aura of respect (or so it at least seems to me) by staying out of daily politics.

[-] Atarian@vlemmy.net 1 points 1 year ago

Rule 1: Authoritarian shitcunts get the rope

Rule 2: Be excellent to each other (with the exception of rule 1)

Rule 3: Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms is now a store

[-] whou@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago
[-] jayknight@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago
[-] Followupquestion@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Anatole France

[-] n0m4n@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A right of water, shelter, food, medical care and schooling. A right to live free of violence, a right of basic equality, for equal justice, a right to privacy, and a right to be forgotten.

[-] LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I'd add in a right to connectivity. Not having the internet is a giant disadvantage in today's society.

But otherwise, your list is top notch!

[-] blamemeta@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

2a, but simplified for polticians and other toddlers.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No matter how big or small, deadly or not, this is ironclad.

[-] DubiousInterests@lemmy.fmhy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

That amendment lets me purchase nuclear armaments.

[-] LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I could see an interpretation of this where the government doesn't make it illegal for you to own any weapon but makes selling them illegal. After all, it's not infringing on your right to have them, it just regulates the market for weapons, which isn't forbidden by the letter of the law.

[-] DubiousInterests@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

True that is a way around it but then it would basically have the exact problem the 2nd amendment already has, Licensing can already be used on the 2nd amendment and many other amendments. For it to really work you would need to add paragraphs, probably a whole book to the amendment of what is and is not covered, and yet somehow have it be future proof too.

[-] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

"No matter how futuristic or advanced guns become" because I'm sick of hearing "bUt ThEsE gUnS wErEn'T iNvEnTeD yEt!"

this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
11 points (86.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43831 readers
739 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS