[ExI] constitution amendments
spike66 at att.net
Wed Jul 15 01:36:18 UTC 2009
> > >> ...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
> > >
> > > ...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... Stathis
Ja, agree. Fortunately for me, I see little in the US constitution with
which I disagree, very little. On the contrary, I find that a most
remarkably well-designed document. We should study that, early and often.
The most egregious laws in the US are not in the constitution, such as the
body of drug laws for instance.
> Agreed, though I thought Spike's view here was in the context
> of a smaller initial government... Regards, Dan
Exactly. I note that every political leader who tried to reduce the size of
the US government has failed. Watch California in the next few weeks.
There you will see a state government which is brutally forced to reduce in
size, not by the Taahx Tuuurminator (as much as we like that guy) but more
fundamentally by stark lack of funds.
More information about the extropy-chat