Rewriting legal codes is dumb imo. Political power and ideology don’t stem from a little set of rules, it stems from control of the state apparatus, means of production and media, as well as popular support. Constitutions are a scapegoat, but as we see with Trump in office, law is thrown out or the window and suddenly all institutional difficulties to apply policy disappear instantly. Trump can pass millions of laws in a day, whereas poor old dems keep complaining about not having supermajorities etc etc and when they do suddenly a few representatives go rogue and vote against policy.
I find it hilarious when “american politics connoisseurs” pat themselves in the back for knowing “ackchually democrats didn’t have a senate majority since XXXX and you need yo pass this filibuster law of 1935 to be able to modify the twentythird amendment to the congressional jury bulletin, for which at least 71/155ths of Parliament, Congress and Senate have to…”. Like, you’re seeing with your own eyes Trump shut down government and find ways to pay the troops, separation of powers and checks and balances do not exist. They’re idealist nonsense used to justify stopping progressive policy from passing.
Constitutions aren’t purely idealist, any governing organization needs a set of meta rules to help structure itself. It’s a very practical technology, and the only structures that don’t have them tend to be personal dictatorships of some kind (absolute monarchs and small business owners and such). Of course the Constitution is always subordinate to the collective desires of the ruling class (who can choose to ignore or distort it as needed to maintain their class position), but it can be very effective in limiting the individual desires of particular rulers (though, as we’re seeing, this benefit can become ineffective over time)
I don’t disagree that constitutions in themselves are useful, I just believe that rewriting a constitution doesn’t change shit usually unless it comes with regime change, which is the important part.
Fully agree, and I would add that most of the examples of rewriting constitutions I can think of are usually a downgrade, since the ruling class is dominant in government more often than not. Like the most likely way the US Constitution is going to be rewritten in the near term is if the GOP passes their constitutional convention bullshit in 2/3 of states
Rewriting legal codes is dumb imo. Political power and ideology don’t stem from a little set of rules, it stems from control of the state apparatus, means of production and media, as well as popular support. Constitutions are a scapegoat, but as we see with Trump in office, law is thrown out or the window and suddenly all institutional difficulties to apply policy disappear instantly. Trump can pass millions of laws in a day, whereas poor old dems keep complaining about not having supermajorities etc etc and when they do suddenly a few representatives go rogue and vote against policy.
I find it hilarious when “american politics connoisseurs” pat themselves in the back for knowing “ackchually democrats didn’t have a senate majority since XXXX and you need yo pass this filibuster law of 1935 to be able to modify the twentythird amendment to the congressional jury bulletin, for which at least 71/155ths of Parliament, Congress and Senate have to…”. Like, you’re seeing with your own eyes Trump shut down government and find ways to pay the troops, separation of powers and checks and balances do not exist. They’re idealist nonsense used to justify stopping progressive policy from passing.
Constitutions aren’t purely idealist, any governing organization needs a set of meta rules to help structure itself. It’s a very practical technology, and the only structures that don’t have them tend to be personal dictatorships of some kind (absolute monarchs and small business owners and such). Of course the Constitution is always subordinate to the collective desires of the ruling class (who can choose to ignore or distort it as needed to maintain their class position), but it can be very effective in limiting the individual desires of particular rulers (though, as we’re seeing, this benefit can become ineffective over time)
I don’t disagree that constitutions in themselves are useful, I just believe that rewriting a constitution doesn’t change shit usually unless it comes with regime change, which is the important part.
Fully agree, and I would add that most of the examples of rewriting constitutions I can think of are usually a downgrade, since the ruling class is dominant in government more often than not. Like the most likely way the US Constitution is going to be rewritten in the near term is if the GOP passes their constitutional convention bullshit in 2/3 of states