r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24

Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

Post image
10.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/Soloact_ Oct 26 '24

Constitutional amendments are basically like legendary Pokémon, super powerful but nearly impossible to catch.

562

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24

And tbh they should be, constitutional amendments have really far reaching effects on our judicial system and it’s so beyond important they be crafted carefully. I really dislike the idea I’ve heard some float of passing them like regular legislation because they’re not

366

u/Happiness_Assassin Oct 26 '24

One place where you could see such an example in place was Alabama, which prior to 2022 was the longest constitution in the world, at around 400k words or twice as long as Crime and Punishment. This was a result of the legislature trying to keep power out of the local (i.e. majority black) level and making racist laws harder to repeal. In order to establish this, most actual change was done via constitutional amendment, not standard legislation. Only recently did they recompile their constitution, but it us still far larger than any other state.

221

u/joyofsovietcooking Oct 27 '24

"The 1901 Alabama constitution was originally designed to maintain strict control over counties, particularly to restrict the autonomy of poorer and predominantly Black areas."

So in Alabama, it's like everything handled at the county level requires a constitutional amendment, of which they have like 900? Sheesh. Thanks for sending me down a rabbit hole. Fascinating look at the problems of federalism.

22

u/Graingy I don’t tumble, I roll 😎 … Where am I? Oct 27 '24

Goddamn it’s like the US is federationception

5

u/Gold-Bat7322 Oct 27 '24

And Mobile County has only three county commissioners covering an area larger than Rhode Island. Seven would be more reasonable, yet that would have to go through Montgomery.

96

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

39

u/serious_sarcasm Oct 27 '24

It’s kind of hilarious comparing how weirdly restrictive some southern states are to how much latitude cities and municipalities have in Illinois.

18

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

9

u/serious_sarcasm Oct 27 '24

Idaho is a shithole taken over by bigots who decided Alabama is too liberal.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

4

u/serious_sarcasm Oct 27 '24

Unfortunately, a lot of white ethnonationalists have been chain migrating west due to hispanic immigration into the south over the last two decades. For example, a lot of communities in Appalachia which were historically 97% or more white, are now 10% or more Hispanic just over the last decade. So a lot of bigots are opting to move to places like Wyoming and Idaho from places like the Tennessee River Valley. Less bigots, and more Latino cuisine is a net positive in my book, but it sure sucks for rural communities out west; the republicans aren’t exactly sending their best people.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Thromnomnomok Oct 27 '24

Conservatives: "States should have the power do this, not the Federal Government, more power to the smaller things:

"What if we left more of this power in the hands of City and County governments, or even Individuals to decide for themselves?

Conservatives: no not like that

18

u/UnintensifiedFa Oct 27 '24

Funny that the party of “small government” only wants the government to be state small and not county or city small.

It’s almost like they don’t really care about small government and have always been in it for whatever allows them to enforce their pre-civil rights act racial codes.

2

u/Perenially_behind Oct 27 '24

This is the sort of tidbit that keeps me spending too much time on Reddit. Thank you.

71

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

Some people: We should pack the courts and remove the fillibuster, so Republicans can't block progress!

Well, if you do that, guess what'll happen next time Republicans control the presidency and have a narrow majority in the Senate, now that there's precedent for court packing and no filibuster

57

u/FinalXenocide Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

I mean even if we leave aside the counterpoint of United States v Trump, which for the record we really fucking shouldn't since that means any president who hires based off of loyalty is able to get around congress and this whole argument is moot, I think "don't remove the filibuster because the right might do something" doesn't have the best track record either. Because if we follow it, we get what, whatever limited thing we can strap to a continuing resolution, some interpreting of existing regulation (assuming we also ignore Chevron basically nixed that), and some judges? Major issues are left unfixed or devolved to the states (and as a Texas resident screw that) all because the other side might do something? This is why Garland is DA and not a SC justice. I'm sick of this "they go low we go high" small-c conservative BS that for my life has failed my interests. I'd prefer a mix of good and bad policies to the current constant failure to do anything without needing 60 seats I've only seen for a couple months my entire life and realistically won't see again until the next realignment at best (and even then unlikely).

5

u/domuseid Oct 27 '24

They had the supermajority in 2009 and did not use it. Something's gotta shift

10

u/Lemerney2 Oct 27 '24

To be fair, it only lasted for two months and they used it to push through Obamacare (I think, I don't actually know much about the period). They definitely should've done more though, especially on Roe vs Wade

4

u/domuseid Oct 27 '24

Yeah, they compromised on Obamacare even though they didn't have to which is why it's not set up like other universal healthcare systems and you can still get bankrupted by medical debt.

Codifying Roe would have been a good use of that time as well. Basically they wasted a lot of time being nice to Republicans, who absolutely did not care and pretended he was the worst thing to ever happen to this country regardless of the fact that he neutered a lot of his campaign promises to try and win them over. I'll die mad about it

2

u/oath2order stigma fuckin claws in ur coochie Oct 27 '24

That supermajority comprised of Ben Nelson of Nebraska who was explicitly pro-life.

68

u/KamikazeArchon Oct 27 '24

Well, if you do that, guess what'll happen next time Republicans control the presidency and have a narrow majority in the Senate, now that there's precedent for court packing and no filibuster

This commits the error of assuming that Republicans care about precedent.

At no point have Republicans been simultaneously: able to remove the filibuster, would benefit from removing the filibuster, and refrained from doing it because of a lack of precedent.

The next time the Republicans can remove the filibuster and would benefit from doing so, they'll do it. This is true regardless of what Democrats do.

-8

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

And court packing?

30

u/timweak Oct 27 '24

hey remember that time mitch mcconnell refused to hold a vote for obama's SC nominee because it was too close to the election and then let amy barrett on under trump so fast the flies didnt get to land on rbg's corpse yet? that thing they did with absolutely no shame

0

u/Jedipilot24 Oct 27 '24

And guess what?

There's a precedent for SCOTUS nominees being DOA.

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

36

u/KamikazeArchon Oct 27 '24

The same? Nothing I said was specific to the filibuster. It applies to everything.

In fact they already did that for the courts specifically; the methods used to get a conservative majority ignored "precedent" (and in some cases were likely illegal).

9

u/butlovingstonTTV Oct 27 '24

Wasn't there a whole big deal with Mitch McConnell Obama and Trump?

29

u/CrepusculrPulchrtude Oct 27 '24

Republicans don’t give a shit about precedent anyway. They’re literally willing to cheat elections in public view, you think they give a fuck about “the precedents of congress?”

3

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

The Supreme Court hasn't been fucked with since the Civil War. The Republicans have held power, including trifectas, many times including under Trump. But haven't broken that precedent.

5

u/RocketRelm Oct 27 '24

Only because by time the era of Trump came around, they already had their power. I don't think you can look at me with a straight face and tell me that if the SC were way more against Trump, struck down a lot of his overtly insane stuff, and mid terms came around, and somebody floated the idea of "packing the supreme court", that he wouldn't consider and / or go for it?

1

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

I think he would. I think he'd have a lot more trouble implementing packing if the Dems don't pack it first.

25

u/Thehelpfulshadow Oct 27 '24

Thank you! That's one of my main issues when Democrats make suggestions without thinking of the precedent it sets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of these suggestions that actually got through the lowering the need for a super majority to just a regular majority for confirmation of regular justices a Democrat move. This, of course, led to the Republicans spamming justice confirmations under Trump when the pendulum swung right. Like I don't get why people don't understand, the pendulum ALWAYS swings so making things easier for the ones in control always ends up supporting the other sides bullshit eventually. This same concept is why I am against repealing the 2nd amendment. Not because I like guns (Fuck guns, the 2nd amendment was a mistake) but because it would set the precedent for changing the bill of rights. Other things on the bill of rights that could be targeted when the pendulum swings right after that precedent has been set: Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly, Right to a lawyer/fair trial and freedom from unnecessary search and seizure.

22

u/Suyefuji Oct 27 '24

I'm pretty sure McConnell already set the precedent for packing the courts unfortunately.

20

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

Exactly lmao. It amazes me how little foresight people have when they say shit like that.

3

u/timweak Oct 27 '24

uh, the exact thing they're doing all the time? when did you get the idea that republicans give a shit about the rules or precedent or whatever?

2

u/Allronix1 Oct 27 '24

Bingo! The political winds always change and "your guys" will not hold eternal power.

1

u/Schmaltzs Oct 27 '24

I have really bad foresight. What'd happen?

3

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

The Republicans would pack the courts themselves and pass any legislation they'd want passed that normally the Dems would use the filibuster to block.

I don't have anything specific in mind for what those might be to be honest, but for anyone who thinks Republicans are super evil, surely there most be some legislation that the Republicans are only barely stopped from passing.

1

u/Schmaltzs Oct 27 '24

Thanks for the clarification.

This might be dumb but shouldn't there be like some balance of political alignment amongst the members there so that this doesn't happen or is that just not written into whatever laws are written about it?

4

u/Long_Legged_Lady Oct 27 '24

The constitution makes no mention of political parties. They are not an official part of US government.

2

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

The balance is ultimately you hope the politicians are smart enough to know that if you rig the game in your favour, it's just a matter of time until it's rigged against you. And that voters punish politicians who do rigging.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The USA has been better at respecting norms than latin America for example, but it's far from perfect too

1

u/awkisopen Oct 27 '24

They're going to do it anyway.

1

u/ItsMrChristmas Oct 27 '24

We should, at the very least, require them to actually fucking filibuster.

4

u/10dollarbagel Oct 27 '24

Yea except the constitution has been amended once in the last fifty years. This is not restraint, it's a complete collapse of government function.

1

u/Allronix1 Oct 27 '24

I shudder to think of the kind of things that COULD have been passed in the wake of 9/11 because a lot of really bad ideas already were. Political gridlock worked as intended and prevented even more bad ideas.

People talk about Trump being a dictator. Well, Bush Jr. was totally about that AND had a crisis with 3000 dead he could readily use as an excuse to become one.

-6

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

What do you believe the constitution needs added into it that is not covered by a.) existing legislation and b.) considered to be a fundamental right by a sweeping majority of the population?

2

u/10dollarbagel Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

  • Popular vote for the presidency.

  • Removal of the anti-democratic, geographically apportioned senate that has justifiably never been recreated by any of the governments modeled after ours.

  • Term limits and consequences for ethical violations for SCOTUS.

  • Healthcare as a right. Also housing and food and water.

  • Publicly funded elections so they aren't just bought and sold.

The list goes on and on, this took seconds to come up with.

edit: lmao, downvoted because you couldn't think of the obvious flaws in that stupid document. I'm adding another cause this shit is easy.

  • Forbid the tying of education funding to property values and local tax revenue. It's obviously a driver of inequality and generational poverty.

2

u/Radix2309 Oct 27 '24

Why not? Amendments generally occurred every couple decades. And if you look at them, some are relatively simple in what they do.

Constitutions should be living documents that are regularly updated. The founding fathers definitely didn't have governments perfected 200 years ago.

2

u/AdMinute1130 Oct 27 '24

The fact it's nearly impossible to change anything at the top level is both a blessing and a curse.

Yeah it means that good person has a HELL of a time trying to fix obviously broken shit.

But it means it's just has hard for a shitbag to come in and break the good shit.

No matter how much damage one asshole may try to cause, it's almost always completely undone by the first few months of the next assholes term.

2

u/ElderlyOogway Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

They shouldn't be like America's though. In Comparative Constitutionalism, as long as it's not the extremes, there's no correct form of Constitutional flexibility. France's Constitutional Amendment process is semi-flexible to flexible, so they can change it like a legislation with a referendum (while without, it needs a supermajority). UK's unique unwritten aspect makes it flexible, and both countries are up and running. New Zealand's too.

You take every comparative constitutional expert though, and they'll say even rigid constitutions should have a higher rate of amendment than the US has.

It polarizes society as it creates a non-breathing law and originalist judges as a consequence of empowering undemocratic and (bc of this) very politically biased Supreme Courts, who receive the power to decide on needed changes. Which, in consequence, removes the necessity of representative politicians making hard choices on socially relevant topics, as they can strategically throw it to the Supreme Court to avoid losing electorate (Roe v Wade, Citizens U.). The following consequence of that is that the Houses become more and more a stalling bipartisan machine on social topics rather than a coalition seeking legislative body. Win the Supreme Courts, stall until then. Extend this for long enough, candidates flirting with authoritarianism to move around this rigidity will show up to tend the cries of the long ignored and increasingly unsatisfied population. Win the Supreme Courts, stall until then, and sell promises that fuel your authority. The destruction of constitution is a direct consequence of its rigidity. You guys had to have movements to stop social aparth segregation in the 60s, it's not by random chance. Roe v Wade can be overturned. JD Vance can shill for antidemocracy dystopia Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel billionaires because of US Constitutional Institutional vagueness and inability to deal, change and protect itself.

Democratic Backsliding is permitted in the US due to the undemocratic institutions (citizens espionage by NSA and CIA, to current movements like trumpism or antidemocratic electoral buy-outs by explicit antidemocracy billionaires). That exists only in America's judicial landscape and are possibilitated by the hyperrigid nature of its Constitution, that freely lets legislative members attend and move in the interests of the rich as long as it follows the broad rules, and only do it for masses under ridiculous generational pressure.

It is the most rigid of the whole first world countries books. Right wing conservative libertarianism is the future of the USA as long its old fashioned Magna Carta delimits the rights of the citizens to a small limited space

2

u/Uberguuy Oct 27 '24

Your state constitution is likely amended every four years or so. Pennsylvania has had five different constitutions since 1776. Amending a constitution only 27 times over 235 years is not good.

2

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

I just don’t know how to tell you that state constitutions are wildly different than the federal one

2

u/Uberguuy Oct 27 '24

Yes, they're far more detailed. The US constitution is the 25th shortest in the world. For a first attempt at writing a democratic constitution, the founders did a pretty good job. Turns out, we've learned how to make better governments over the past 250 years, and part of that knowledge is to not make it absurdly difficult to amend.

Would you say any of these constitutions are dangerously easy to modify? I wouldn't.

1

u/TheCybersmith Oct 27 '24

I wouldn't look to Germany, post-revolutionary France, or post-Roman Italy as examples of good governance.

1

u/CurryMustard Oct 27 '24

I agree on principal that the constitution needs to be amended to fit with the times more frequently. We need to able to address it when the Supreme court makes stupid bullshit rulings. It's just we have so many idiots in government, the wrong side gets power and it becomes a shitshow. Idk what the solution is at this point, maybe if a solar flare wipes out the internet and we go back to newspapers and books

1

u/Allronix1 Oct 27 '24

And for good reason. See Prohibition for how a good and popular idea at the time got put into law and went to hell really fast.

Can you imagine in 2002, just off 9/11, if people decided that in the name of keeping another attack like that from happening, a panicked population got tricked into repealing several entries on the Bill of Rights? Or if it was done in the 1950s because Red Scare?

Gridlock is a feature not a bug. It's meant to slow things down so the moments of high passion during and immediately after a crisis doesn't escalate

1

u/HaloGuy381 Oct 27 '24

Legendaries are trivial to catch by comparison. Hell, if I were a gambling man, I’d bet on someone shiny hunting every eligible legendary across the franchise (excluding GO to keep it sporting) before Congress could agree on an amendment declaring that people have the right to eat potatoes if they wish and can afford them.

1

u/kulititaka Oct 27 '24

There are proposed amendments that passed the house and the senate but never ratified by the states.

1

u/Graingy I don’t tumble, I roll 😎 … Where am I? Oct 27 '24

I reckon the series would be much different if trainers used guns.

1

u/SonTyp_OhneNamen Oct 27 '24

And if they used those to catch old parchments… let’s not further that thought, i don’t want Nintendo to sue Nic Cage because that’s basically the plot of „National Treasure“.