I saw an article a while back (which unfortunately I can't find right now) that suggested that what the House is doing now is not dissimilar to how Britain became a parliamentary system - essentially the power of the purse gave the House of Commons so much power that it became the real seat of government, reducing the monarch to little more than a figure head and asserting its dominance over the House of Lords.

Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.

So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.

Could it be that the Tea Party, whose attitude toward the constitution at times comes off as a sort of bizarre, ritualized pagan worship, could ironically be the ones who actually convert us to a parliamentary system? Even more ironic, it wouldn't really be a full parliamentary system, but one more along the lines of the hybrid system used in...France.

So, there you have it. The Tea Party's true goal is to turn us into France.

(10-07-2013 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I saw an article a while back (which unfortunately I can't find right now) that suggested that what the House is doing now is not dissimilar to how Britain became a parliamentary system - essentially the power of the purse gave the House of Commons so much power that it became the real seat of government, reducing the monarch to little more than a figure head and asserting its dominance over the House of Lords.

Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.

So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.

Could it be that the Tea Party, whose attitude toward the constitution at times comes off as a sort of bizarre, ritualized pagan worship, could ironically be the ones who actually convert us to a parliamentary system? Even more ironic, it wouldn't really be a full parliamentary system, but one more along the lines of the hybrid system used in...France.

So, there you have it. The Tea Party's true goal is to turn us into France.

Many years ago I attended a lecture by a visiting political scientist who extolled one virtue of parliamentary systems: the ability of either the majority or the opposition to dissolve the government and force new elections. The advantages he enumerated were:
- Real accountability for the administration if they overreach, and for the opposition if they obstruct too much
- Shorter campaigns and faster transitions
- Because the above are short, it also forces the opposition to have sort of a standing "shadow" cabinet, so that the public knows, if they vote for the opposition's candidate for the top job, what sort of folks they will be getting the cabinet as well

He had a proposal for how the US could adopt that (by constitutional amendment, of course) but still preserve the separation of executive and legislative branches that Americans like. It was something like this:
- The president could dissolve the government by proclamation;
- Congress could do it by joint resolution;
- Either way, the voters woul dgo to the polls within X days to vote for a new president and a new Congress. (I can't recall what his approach was to the Senate, which is currently designed NOT to change over completely every time).

The idea was certainly intriguing -- not that it had a snowball's chance in hell (as the speaker recognized), but it was interesting to think about.

(10-07-2013 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I saw an article a while back (which unfortunately I can't find right now) that suggested that what the House is doing now is not dissimilar to how Britain became a parliamentary system - essentially the power of the purse gave the House of Commons so much power that it became the real seat of government, reducing the monarch to little more than a figure head and asserting its dominance over the House of Lords.
Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.
So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.
Could it be that the Tea Party, whose attitude toward the constitution at times comes off as a sort of bizarre, ritualized pagan worship, could ironically be the ones who actually convert us to a parliamentary system? Even more ironic, it wouldn't really be a full parliamentary system, but one more along the lines of the hybrid system used in...France.
So, there you have it. The Tea Party's true goal is to turn us into France.

Other than the snarky Tea Pasrty comments, an interesting read. I'd be fine with that sort of transformation. I think one major problem is that our executive has become way too powerful. Not for conducting foreign policy, but the rule over domestic matters by administrative regulation is way out of hand.

(10-07-2013 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I saw an article a while back (which unfortunately I can't find right now) that suggested that what the House is doing now is not dissimilar to how Britain became a parliamentary system - essentially the power of the purse gave the House of Commons so much power that it became the real seat of government, reducing the monarch to little more than a figure head and asserting its dominance over the House of Lords.

Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.

So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.

Could it be that the Tea Party, whose attitude toward the constitution at times comes off as a sort of bizarre, ritualized pagan worship, could ironically be the ones who actually convert us to a parliamentary system? Even more ironic, it wouldn't really be a full parliamentary system, but one more along the lines of the hybrid system used in...France.

So, there you have it. The Tea Party's true goal is to turn us into France.

France is looking better all the time.

JAAO- It's not Tea, it's T.E.A. It's posts like the original one that prompt me to remember what the letters T.E.A. actually are an acronym for:

Taxed Enough ALREADY.

I came across a few articles today, that made me think:

Insurance premium increases shock Charlotte consumers
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/10...lNqa1MrFvk
"George Schwab of Charlotte, who pays $228 a month for his family’s $10,000 deductible plan from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.
In a Sept. 23 letter, Blue Cross notified him that his current plan doesn’t meet benefit requirements outlined in the Affordable Care Act and suggested a comparable plan for $1,208 a month – $980 more than he now pays.

“I’m 62 and retired,” Schwab said. “This creates a tremendous financial burden for our family.

“The President told the American people numerous times that… ‘If you like your coverage, you can keep it,’” Schwab said. “How can we keep it if it has been eliminated? How can we keep it if the premium has been increased 430 percent in one year?”


and this one:
Beyond Obamacare glitches, some consumers face dramatically higher rates
As Obamacare begins to roll out, some people who already buy insurance on the individual market are getting cancellation notices – and offers for coverage at double and triple their old rates.
http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-obamacare-g...oAuffQtDMD

Why are these kind of people so vilified for wanting to keep some of their hard-earned wages for themselves? Why are they being forced to choose between paying 430% increases for something they already had, and were told they were allowed to keep, and going off health insurance completely, becoming uninsured when they previously had insurance and paying the fine instead?

Many people are hoping the Republican-controlled house will hold fast to its promise to try to get the USA to do what most states and most households have to do: live within their means. Cut spending, and start paying off the debt.

If the debt ceiling is not raised there will still be money to pay bills. The difference is, we will have to make CHOICES about what we really need to pay and what is wasteful. How come those that crow they are pro-choice always balk when having to make choices (and take responsibility for them instead of passing it off to burden someone else)?

Good Owl, sorry, I don't care to debate the ACA on yet another thread. But I am curious about your take on the shift in power and the way our constitution works that would occur if the House Republicans get their way. Speaking as a political scientist, not a partisan, this would be a major change. Future House majorities of either party aren't going to forgot that this worked. While my comment about the Tea/T.E.A. Party wanting to turn the US into France was facetious, there really is a very direct parallel to how the House of Commons became the dominant branch of government in the UK. And I really do believe the end result would most resemble the French hybrid system.

Is that desirable outcome in the big picture?

Time magazine's cover:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25976845@N06/10093228445/

Of course, as a former political scientist, I know that concepts like 'democracy' and 'majority rule' are not as simple to implement as they seem, and that two perfectly legitimate implementations can lead to two completely different outcomes.

But it does strike me as hard to defend the current shutdown/debt limit deal on democratic terms. Obama ran on implementing some sort of universal health care plan. He implemented one more to the right than what his base wanted. We had another election in which Obama defeated the candidate who said he would repeal the ACA (ironically based on that candidate's signature accomplishment as governor). The Democrats retained the Senate, but failed to regain the house. It's hard for me to see that outcome as a mandate to shutdown the government and perhaps default on our debts.

But again, the political scientist in me says, if the Republicans feel that strongly about it and the institutional structure allows them this opportunity, who am I to say it's a bad move just because they have different policy preferences?

(10-08-2013 09:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Good Owl, sorry, I don't care to debate the ACA on yet another thread. But I am curious about your take on the shift in power and the way our constitution works that would occur if the House Republicans get their way. Speaking as a political scientist, not a partisan, this would be a major change. Future House majorities of either party aren't going to forgot that this worked. While my comment about the Tea/T.E.A. Party wanting to turn the US into France was facetious, there really is a very direct parallel to how the House of Commons became the dominant branch of government in the UK. And I really do believe the end result would most resemble the French hybrid system.

Is that desirable outcome in the big picture?

I don't think our government, nor the "governing class" is functioning like was intended by the folks that fought and died to start this country.

To me, George Washington is the about the most amazing figure in mankind's political history for one simple act: he declined power when offered, and walked away, opting to become what was then a more regular citizen. He had a failing farm to go back to and a wife.

I think there was never an intention to have a "ruling class" (or "serving class" as some like to characterize them) in this country. But the founders made the classic mistake of projecting their own personal values and proclivities on others. Even in his own time, where Washington appears to have been more ambivalent about power and status, seeing both its drawbacks and traps as strongly as its enticements, many other men were lesser so. And so the formation of political parties, and career politicians, etc...

I think we're in a mess of our own making. But I do hold out hope we can work our way out of it. It always strikes me as odd that the party of JFK, the "ask not what your country can do for you" is so adamant about enslaving everyone into permanent government serfdom whether they volunteer to participate or not. I think our founders were by and large falling on the libertarian side more than anything else, with some at either end of the political spectrum. I think we forget that too often.

Our founders already had a government "system" of a sort with their serfdom to King George as colonists. No matter how hard they worked or tried, it could be ruled away without their consent and without recourse by one or a handful of what then passed for the bureaucracy. So it was a King and his court instead of a President and a partisan-controlled Senate. Results are the same.

They wanted out, and they were willing to take their chances with whatever they could figure out as an alternative. Same today. This (the Dem overreach of power) is BS and too many American people want out of it. The ruling class tries to use trickery and rhetoric and force to get them to stay. You know, there were many, many Tories at the time of the Revolution who were just fine with the King and fought against the American revolutionaries to keep the status quo. History repeats itself with different players, but same fundamental dynamic happening again. Its inherent in human nature, and especially among Americans.

I like the current House strategy as it potentially sets us on a course to deal with the elephant in the room: we have to spend far less than we are, and the cuts will be painful. I blame Bush for his ridiculous expansion of Medicare as much for preceeding this. Passing laws with Parliamentary tricks always comes back to bite you in the end, it just takes some time.

Will other Houses hold an executive hostage, yes if there is not give and take. But I have a feeling in the end they will cut some sort of deal. The ACA is having the problems most fundamentally threatening its success as was predicted: too many people will be paying radically more for their mandatory purchase of a bloated health policy that gives them things they neither want or need, and not enough of the poor will be getting their "free' insurance that was promised to make up the difference.

The current Republican Study Committee alternative health plan (the one you don't hear a peep about from the media), sitting in a bill in Congress, is a far better approach to the problem. It introduces the consumer and cost containment by individual choice and more transparency in provider costs back into the system. (It is the third-party payor or even potentially a single party payer (total govt control) that is the fundamental problem here, after all). It separates out those with pre-existing conditions, and sets aside adequate funds to provide for their care. The way the Dems are trying to make this a one-size fits all thing is the fundamental problem. People's needs are inherently different when it comes to their health and whether or not they want or need what is called insurance, but is primarily a health management system.

If the people demand that a tyrannical executive who has overstepped his authority and abused his power, along with a Senate bent on ignoring the Constitution (trying to "pass" a "clean" continuing resolution and sending it to the House for a vote now, when the Senate is not authorized to originate spending bills, smacks of arrogance and political trickery. )

The people at some point will demand accountability, as many are now. If that leads us to a Parliamentary system, then I guess that's where we'll be.

(10-08-2013 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Time magazine's cover:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25976845@N06/10093228445/
But it does strike me as hard to defend the current shutdown/debt limit deal on democratic terms.

Why? There is a trillions of dollars of spending authorized and we need to cap what we spend and start living in our means. We need to be pro-choice here and just make CHOICES about what to spend all this money on. So finally, the opportunity to cut entitlements arises: which account for, what 2/3 of the budget? We need to address this issue or the country is eventually kaput. Why not take the opportunity to do it now?

And it's not a shutdown, it's really a slimdown. And no one is saying that individuals who like certain services or programs so much that they themselves consider them essential cannot form their own groups or nonprofits and raise their own capital to fund their own priorities. That has been going on since the very beginning of our country. Yet too many of those services have been shifted to and overtaken by the government ion one way or another. I propose we return to the prior system where if people wanted something to happen, they got together and formed and funded a society to make it so, without the government taxing authority to tyrannical impose itself on those who disagreed.

Before you ask, yes, I'd abolish the income tax (replacing it with import/export and internet commerce taxes, usage fees and such to a more limited extent), the Social Security, the payroll tax the welfare, the whole kit and kaboodle. I'd get rid of US govt foreign aid. I'd have a smaller government overall that was far more focused and nimble.

I'd replace all those with an incentivised encouragement of people forming their own non-profits and advocating and raising funds for them themselves. The same billionaires who give to political interests would then be running the purse strings for these groups. But the tyranny of the tax yoke would be greatly reduced, and more people could just live their lives in freedom without being bothered by all this nonsense.

No one is suggesting that poor people or the disabled don't need help. On the contrary, I'd rather aid them more directly than with government bureaucracies that are taxpayer-funded self-perpetuating jobs programs for people who know how to do little else.

(10-08-2013 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  The Democrats retained the Senate, but failed to regain the house. It's hard for me to see that outcome as a mandate to shutdown the government and perhaps default on our debts.

Again, why? As a former political scientist, the House retains the purse strings and must originate spending bills. There's a well-though out reasoning for that that you appear trying to ignore. And no government has been shut down. A bunch of fluff has been trimmed back temporarily (with the promise of full reimbursement later- paying people for not working- wish I could have one of those checks at my job- but then again I don't wish it, because that is the very mentality that is the problem here.)

The ACTUAL truth is the Dems barely rammed through a partisan bill no one had even read on a partisan vote that was completed after an election where the Dems voting had lost theirt seats. By the time they voted, the people had CHANGED THEIR MIND ON IT AND VOTED SO. This fact is conveniently forgotten and ignored by those who say the un-Ano-CA is the will of the people. No, it is not, no matter how much you and Obama Reid and Pelosi and others pretend it is so.

(10-08-2013 10:33 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The ACTUAL truth is the Dems barely rammed through a partisan bill no one had even read on a partisan vote that was completed after an election where the Dems voting had lost theirt seats. By the time they voted, the people had CHANGED THEIR MIND ON IT AND VOTED SO. This fact is conveniently forgotten and ignored by those who say the un-Ano-CA is the will of the people. No, it is not, no matter how much you and Obama Reid and Pelosi and others pretend it is so.

I find your "actual truth" less than convincing - I find the results of an off-year election for the house of representatives, when many seats are decided more by local than national politics, much less convincing than a national presidential election when one of the defeated candidate's main talking points was repeal of the ACA.

(10-08-2013 10:33 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The ACTUAL truth is the Dems barely rammed through a partisan bill no one had even read on a partisan vote that was completed after an election where the Dems voting had lost theirt seats. By the time they voted, the people had CHANGED THEIR MIND ON IT AND VOTED SO. This fact is conveniently forgotten and ignored by those who say the un-Ano-CA is the will of the people. No, it is not, no matter how much you and Obama Reid and Pelosi and others pretend it is so.

But the people also had the chance to throw Obama out and elect a guy who promised to repeal ACA and they didn't. That is also the "ACTUAL truth". : )

Point being, our system makes it very easy for people to claim the people support their point of view but hard to prove. We could go back and forth all day on it. That's one reason I prefer parliamentary systems, thought they are not a guarantee you now what you are going to get either...

I am all for a shift in power away from the presidency and the executive to the congress. Even when the guy in the white house has been more appealing to me than the guys in the senate and house, I still felt that way conceptually.

I've actually thought about a hybrid type of approach.

The house would be run along parliamentary lines, with proportional representation districts and with procedures for dissolution and snap elections along parliamentary lines, but without the transfer of executive power (sort of like France, but a less powerful executive than France). The cabinet members would be selected from sitting senators. You'd have the shadow cabinet and the idea that when you vote for president you know who you're voting for in cabinet positions, and there would be at least some political accountability--let a secretary make a controversial decision and you can be sure that he/she would be targeted by the electorate next go-round.

I am just reading this thread but the group that so-called "shut down the government" is not the one with the majority in the House, but the one with the majority in the Senate, and the Presidency. And that party could put most everything back into business with a few legitimate votes on it. But they are holding the country hostage because they can't get EVERYTHING they want. The House has had the power of the purse for over two hundred years so I see no reason to think that this current distraction will change us "into France". It hasn't yet has it? But the only reason that this is even possible right now is because the ruling party in the White House and Senate has refused to put together a budget for the last 5 years. And that is, quite frankly, embarrassing and irresponsible.

(10-08-2013 09:38 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  I am just reading this thread but the group that so-called "shut down the government" is not the one with the majority in the House, but the one with the majority in the Senate, and the Presidency. And that party could put most everything back into business with a few legitimate votes on it. But they are holding the country hostage because they can't get EVERYTHING they want. The House has had the power of the purse for over two hundred years so I see no reason to think that this current distraction will change us "into France". It hasn't yet has it? But the only reason that this is even possible right now is because the ruling party in the White House and Senate has refused to put together a budget for the last 5 years. And that is, quite frankly, embarrassing and irresponsible.

Well, as you might guess, I'm in such complete disagreement with your assessment of who is doing what and who is responsible, I'm not sure it makes sense to even waste our time debating it.

But I will respond to your point about whether or not this would be a fundamental change in how are system works. Of course the 'power of the purse' has been in the constitution for 200+ years, but so have a lot of other things and the way the constitution has worked in practice has nonetheless changed drastically over the years. (I would argue that is a strength, even if I don't think every change has been a good one.) Let's say for arguments sake, Obama caves and Obamacare is repealed, and a new budget based on Republican priorities is enacted. This will have happened even after Republicans failed to win the Presidency, failed to win control of the Senate, and failed to get the SC to overturn key portions of the ACA. Yet they would have succeeded in imposing their policy preferences.

Sorry, I don't see how that isn't a fundamental shift in the balance of power between our institutions, regardless of one's opinion on whether the shift itself is good or on the underlying policy agenda.

My other question for you and GoodOwl would be whether you see a default as a serious problem. I think that's one disconnect between some of the players on the Republican side - big business, wall street, etc. seems to be very worried it could be catastrophic. But the Cruz/Tea Party faction has made a number of comments that it's not a big deal.

I'm hoping we don't get a real world test of that hypothesis...

(10-09-2013 12:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 09:38 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  I am just reading this thread but the group that so-called "shut down the government" is not the one with the majority in the House, but the one with the majority in the Senate, and the Presidency. And that party could put most everything back into business with a few legitimate votes on it. But they are holding the country hostage because they can't get EVERYTHING they want. The House has had the power of the purse for over two hundred years so I see no reason to think that this current distraction will change us "into France". It hasn't yet has it? But the only reason that this is even possible right now is because the ruling party in the White House and Senate has refused to put together a budget for the last 5 years. And that is, quite frankly, embarrassing and irresponsible.

Well, as you might guess, I'm in such complete disagreement with your assessment of who is doing what and who is responsible, I'm not sure it makes sense to even waste our time debating it.

But I will respond to your point about whether or not this would be a fundamental change in how are system works. Of course the 'power of the purse' has been in the constitution for 200+ years, but so have a lot of other things and the way the constitution has worked in practice has nonetheless changed drastically over the years. (I would argue that is a strength, even if I don't think every change has been a good one.) Let's say for arguments sake, Obama caves and Obamacare is repealed, and a new budget based on Republican priorities is enacted. This will have happened even after Republicans failed to win the Presidency, failed to win control of the Senate, and failed to get the SC to overturn key portions of the ACA. Yet they would have succeeded in imposing their policy preferences.

Sorry, I don't see how that isn't a fundamental shift in the balance of power between our institutions, regardless of one's opinion on whether the shift itself is good or on the underlying policy agenda.

My other question for you and GoodOwl would be whether you see a default as a serious problem. I think that's one disconnect between some of the players on the Republican side - big business, wall street, etc. seems to be very worried it could be catastrophic. But the Cruz/Tea Party faction has made a number of comments that it's not a big deal.

I'm hoping we don't get a real world test of that hypothesis...

In theory the party in control of two or three of the house, senate and presidency has not been given carte blanche to enact their policies. In theory the American people elect representatives who are tasked with implementing the "will of the people". In so far as a budget reflecting the priorities of the party in control of the majority of the big three is concerned: perhaps the Dems should have passed a budget at some point in the past five years reflecting and funding their priorities. Intentionally or not, by their budgetary inaction over the last five years they risked exactally what has befallen them.

I agree with your assessment that the use of the constitution in practice has changed dramatically and I would agree that it has generally been a good thing. In so far as being witness to a dramatic shift: I don't know. I'm not convinced but I'm not unconvinced either.

I will say that if any meaningful change comes of all of this I would like to see the following three things in no particular order: 1) a little more seriousness surrounding budgeting, borrowing, spending, etc, 2) absolutely no legislation that applies to everyone except elected representatives and 3) no more passing legislation with the intent to read it later.

All of the above applies equally to both parties and without regard to the policies in question.

My answer to the who is responsible part is that it takes two to have a disagreement, and both sides pretty much appear to be in adolescent temper tantrum stage. I would hold them both responsible, and both bear enough of the responsbility that arguments about whether it's 51-49 this way or 55-45 the other way are pretty much moot.

I don't think getting Obamacare repealed is even on the table as a possibility. It's really difficult for me to understand why republicans are spending so much political capital on this, except that they really are the stupid party.

I think a better approach for republicans would have been simply to let it take effect and fail, which I think it simply has to do. There are way too many basic economic principles being violated here for it to have a chance to work. Increasing demand while paying suppliers less has never worked in all recorded history, and I don't think it's suddenly going to start working now. I think Obamacare was a very dishonest and deceitful piece of legislation that will do far more harm than good, which is one (of many) reasons why I consider democrats the evil party.

If republicans wanted a showdown, I think an interesting possibility might have been to pass a CR that was clean except for two provisions--one, that congress doesn't get the subsidy (they did not get an "exemption" from Obamacare, but a subsidy that essentailly insulates them from its provisions), or two, that all delays, exemptions, exceptions and the like granted by the executive are repealed. And make it clear that an acceptable compromise would be to retain either of the two provisions and ditch the other. It would have been fun to watch Reid and Obama squirm with that one.

Better yet, what I've said all along is that what republicans should have done on day 1 of 2011 is to pass:
- HR1, adopting Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin or some combination of the best of both (since they aren't far apart, that wouldn't be hard, I like D-R slightly better because it imposes a consumption tax to reduce the deficit further); and
- HR2, adopting a Bismarck health care system, paid for by nuking Medicaid, offsetting part of Medicare, and passing along the focused and means-tested welfare programs to the states to do with as they see fit, in return for lifting the Medicaid burden off them.

I might also pass HR3, implementing a consumption tax (if not in HR1) plus the Boortz-Linder prefund.

Would have taken a bit of leadership from Boehner, which seems to be beyond his capability, but IMO it would have been an intelligent strategy.

Those moves would have seized the high ground for all the debt, deficit, tax, and Obamacare contests that have followed. But again, it still looks to me like the stupid party versus the evil party. I have very little use for either.

(10-09-2013 12:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Of course the 'power of the purse' has been in the constitution for 200+ years, but so have a lot of other things and the way the constitution has worked in practice has nonetheless changed drastically over the years. (I would argue that is a strength, even if I don't think every change has been a good one.)

I am curious: when you say that the fact that "the way the constituation works has changed drastically over the years" is a strength, are you referring to:
(1) Specific substantive changes made by amendment, and the logical implications thereof; or
(2) The tendency of various provisions to be mutated or ignored without amendment.

My experience is that, in most cases, when people say they favor an "adaptable" of "evolving" constitution, if you press them for specifics what they really mean is that they like the fact that the constitution can be amended because they like particular amendments -- you know, free speech, trial by jury, women's suffrage (not to mention no quartering of soldiers in private homes!). The fact that most amendments have remained popular through the course of history is not accidental, but a reflection of the wisdom of the original writers, who required a staggering amount of consensus to occur before an amendment can be adopted. (And lest we forget, for the non-original amendments that most people would consider the MOST significant in our (and therefore the world's) constitutional history, achieving that consensus required the deadliest war in American history. It is uncommonly good that a resolution bought so dearly should remain so fixed.)

On the other hand, I have never heard anyone who, when pressed for specifics, argues that the tendency of particular constitutional provisions to be forgotten or ignored without amendment is a strength.

(10-09-2013 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think a better approach for republicans would have been simply to let it take effect and fail, which I think it simply has to do.

The danger in this is that we will get used to the flaws, inefficiencies, higher costs, poorer service, etc. the way we have gotten used to $3 gas. Remember the howls just a few years back? How can we expect people to pay $40 for a fill up and get by? Now it is routine.

(10-09-2013 05:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think a better approach for republicans would have been simply to let it take effect and fail, which I think it simply has to do.

The danger in this is that we will get used to the flaws, inefficiencies, higher costs, poorer service, etc. the way we have gotten used to $3 gas. Remember the howls just a few years back? How can we expect people to pay $40 for a fill up and get by? Now it is routine.

Yes, but if you introduce Bismarck at that point, you should be able to get a consensus favoring it. There are a couple of Bismarck countries that tried single-provider first and changed because of the problems.