fredThrind

The idea that unelected judges or putschists are required to keep a political system sane indicates that the system is flawed (in IT terms, they are hacks rather than features), so I think it is, at least somewhat germane.

27 times out of 11,000 proposed amendments, and as you point out, the first ten happened in bulk. I doubt that the founders planned for 2% of the population (as conservative Antonin Scalia pointed out) being able to block an amendment.

The US is hardly a good comparison: the US constitution is deeply anti-democratic when compared to other liberal democracies, and even when compared to the States of the US because it is almost impossible to amend ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch... ). The fact that judges are forced to invent new rights in the U.S. because a bunch of long-dead guys couldn't predict the future is, in itself, a symptom of a flawed system.

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...

I've been reading this sort of thing a lot recently. Indeed, I think someone admiringly called Turkey's military "the world's best armed constitutional court". Yet, from what I was able to gather, even the Turkish opposition parties objected to the coup, and comments from ordinary Turks (and interestingly Greeks) were that Turkish coups were very bad for them. Many of us presume to have the right to decide the fates of other nations-it's a weird throwback to the imperialist mindset.

I wonder if we'd be as supportive of the US military taking over, in the interests of National Security if say, Trump, won the election and withdrew from Europe and East Asia? Or if Scotland voted to secede from the UK with the consent of the Commons, and the British Army decided that its duty was to protect the Union, and overthrow an elected government?

There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them?

In any case, I fear this is all going to be moot. The commentariat is starting to make noises about the Kremlin supporting all manner of extremist candidates and positions in the West, including Brexit, Marine Le Pen, and Trump himself. Putin may have found the soft underbelly of Western democracy: money. I hope this isn't the case as I'll be as much a victim as anyone; but if it is, it will be the first bitter taste of the foreign meddling and sense of imperious entitlement we've been demonstrating for centuries.