[ExI] constitution amendments

[Dan]

--- On Tue, 7/14/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:39 AM
> 2009/7/14 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> >> ...would it make it any
> >> better if a government or law could only be
> changed if, say,
> >> 2/3 of the population agree? Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > Ja, but recall that it is difficult to get 2/3 of the
> voters to agree on
> > *anything* including the color of snow and whether the
> sun will rise
> > tomorrow.  That fact gives the constitution some
> degree of stability.  The
> > military insures that the government stays within the
> bounds of the
> > constitution, for it is that document that defines who
> is in command of that
> > awesome force.
> 
> But I don't see why it should be considered a good thing
> per se that
> changing laws should be very difficult. What if they're bad
> laws? It's
> like being subject to the edicts of an ancient
> dictatorship; fine if
> you agree with the edicts, not so good if you don't.

Agreed, though I thought Spike's view here was in the context of a smaller initial government. This limit might keep it from growing too quickly. I still think constitutionalism itself is flawed and the supermajority fix is, at best, likely to fail once the political class figures out how to exploit the people not in the supermajority.

Regards,

Dan