Comment by fredThrind | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fredThrind | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not sure if gp is American, but if he is then I would presume he is, indeed serious. The US Constitution is almost impossible to amend in practice, and a ridiculously small percentage of the American population can block an amendment. Indeed, the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made this point.*

This has may have led to a perception from Americans that constitutions ought to be difficult to amend by their nature, and that is an essential feature of republicanism, since the US Constitution is practically set in stone-hence the immense power of the US Supreme Court justices. In fact, most countries do make it considerably easier to change their constitutions (with a straightforward super-majority, in most cases), and to adapt to the needs of the people. The idea of an unbreakable and sacred tyranny of people who are long dead (The Founders) is something unique to the US, among constitutional democracies.The arguments about things being needing to be set in stone confuse cause and effect.

*http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...

This is not as clear-cut as you present it though, it's very much a live wound in political science. Is there anything "sacred", in a democracy? If 99 out of 100 representatives voted for a new Holocaust, would that be fine and legal to enact?

Most systems route around the problem by requiring "supermajorities", or majorities with different qualifications, to amend the most criticals bits (constitutions and the likes) or even to progress regular legislation in some cases ("filibustering"). But the problem is still there. If representatives of a constitutional democracy voted to transform it into an absolutist hereditary monarchy, following all necessary constitutional rules, would that be legitimate?

What we often take for granted, in constitutional sciences, is a set of rules that is often less than 100 years old, and which was achieved with much bloodshed. We risk re-learning painful lessons.

While it is true that the smallest states can club together to block an Amendment, I am not sure that is a real stumbling block in practice.

There have been lots of amendments to the US constitution, and I expect if a solid majority of people wanted something changed, it would not be hard to pass another. This could easily happen if one major party strongly supported something and the other party was merely split.

But in recent decades it has been easier to change the constitution by the back door through getting judgest to give creative interpretations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com