Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (Paravant)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Looks promising. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I actually did this a few weeks ago but forgot the document I'd saved it in til my first class. Expect content soon--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- though not as radical as yours :p --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Aww. Too bad. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- The only real radical change is the splitting of the presidency into two offices, one of which is beholden to the legislature--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, a Speaker of the House being granted actual governing power. Yeah, that's pretty unprecedented as far as I'm aware of. It'd be interesting to see how having a separate domestic and extra-domestic government would play out. I'm obviously in support of a multi-party system without any of this first-past-the-post BS, though not sure if it would really make as much of a difference as one would hope (I say that as someone who actually lives in a multi-party democracy and still sees a lot of room for improvement). For the rest, the other amendments sound great, really. Especially the fuck-Saudi-Arabia one (lol). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- My idea for the split comes from how it works in France, actually :P Though if they came from separate parties it would lead to some issues, though ideally not as much as it currently does. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, the Government of France, a beast of a government system that's largely eluded me so far. (I'm not actually from France, you know. :P) That's the problem with semi-presidential systems, in my opinion, depending on the personalities chairing the posts, you can have the president de facto wielding all the power, or you can have the prime minister de facto calling all the shots. (Just look at Turkey for a great example of this (and that one's actually a parliamentary republic).) Or if you got multiple 'big' personalities in power, you get massive political impasses like in post-'liberation' Iraq and the early DRC. Something that I find more unilaterally positive about the French government, however, is that they have a Constitutional Council
checking the constitutionality of legislation before it's signed into law, saving everyone a load of superfluous court cases. (An idea I blatantly ripped off, of course.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Ah, the Government of France, a beast of a government system that's largely eluded me so far. (I'm not actually from France, you know. :P) That's the problem with semi-presidential systems, in my opinion, depending on the personalities chairing the posts, you can have the president de facto wielding all the power, or you can have the prime minister de facto calling all the shots. (Just look at Turkey for a great example of this (and that one's actually a parliamentary republic).) Or if you got multiple 'big' personalities in power, you get massive political impasses like in post-'liberation' Iraq and the early DRC. Something that I find more unilaterally positive about the French government, however, is that they have a Constitutional Council
- My idea for the split comes from how it works in France, actually :P Though if they came from separate parties it would lead to some issues, though ideally not as much as it currently does. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, a Speaker of the House being granted actual governing power. Yeah, that's pretty unprecedented as far as I'm aware of. It'd be interesting to see how having a separate domestic and extra-domestic government would play out. I'm obviously in support of a multi-party system without any of this first-past-the-post BS, though not sure if it would really make as much of a difference as one would hope (I say that as someone who actually lives in a multi-party democracy and still sees a lot of room for improvement). For the rest, the other amendments sound great, really. Especially the fuck-Saudi-Arabia one (lol). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- The only real radical change is the splitting of the presidency into two offices, one of which is beholden to the legislature--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Aww. Too bad. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- though not as radical as yours :p --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
On Saudi Arabia, but a bit more serious now[edit]
Isn't that last bit of Section 1 unconstitutional though? I agree that Salafism/Wahhabism is a generally nasty ideology, but well, First Amendment. Also dunno how reasonable it is in matters of international relations to require foreign nations to basically just copy the US's proclaimed stance on equality. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- As far as i'm concerned our ideas of religious freedom 1) doesn't apply to how we deal with religious extremist nations and 2) doesnt apply to condemning nations for exporting a religious ideology that is currently leading to people being executed in the streets of Syrian and Iraqi towns while any pre-islamic and islamic structures that do not conform to it's views are demolished. And whether is unreasonable or not is irrelevant to me - I don't see why we should be -allies- with a nation antithetical to equality (which should never be considered an -American- value but a human value, as whether your local culture dislikes something really shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether you treat all humans as equals) like Saudi Arabia is. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- So equality doesn't apply to foreigners? ;) And seriously, the amendement currently reads "reforms and allows [...] equality for all race, gender, creed" immediately followed by "ceases to support and export [insert particular creed here]". I agree, the US being an ally of Saudi Arabia is, comparing the values each proclaims to support, complete and utter bullshit. That doesn't mean the US should be so opposed to Saudi Arabia to the point it violates its own constitution, though. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Seems the easiest way to force it to stop exporting ISIS though. If our means of stopping a world threat (Salafi and Wahhabi Islam are not things we need to allow to spread across the world) involves vaguely stopping the free expression of religion in another nation (and it really is unclear whether it actually would violate the Constitution to do so, as the text never says anything about it) to put pressure on that religious creeds spreader, i'm up for that. your right to free expression stops when it actually starts trying to carry out Warfare and Terrorism for values counter to the Constitution.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would it necessarily be that effective, though? If anything, no longer budding up with the US would actually legitimize Saudi Arabia in the eyes of many.
I also dunno about easiest.I wonder what would happen if the whole Saudi royal family got mysteriously assassinated...*Ahem* Sorry about that. Actually, I know what would happen: massive political unstability that'd only empower Islamic extremists. That whoever ends up on top would plausibly be a strain different from the current Salafi/Wahhabi ideology they export probably wouldn't make that big a difference. Sadly, and this applies to your suggestion as well, easy solutions to bring down oppressive regimes that actually work in the long run are hard to come by. :/ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Would it necessarily be that effective, though? If anything, no longer budding up with the US would actually legitimize Saudi Arabia in the eyes of many.
- Seems the easiest way to force it to stop exporting ISIS though. If our means of stopping a world threat (Salafi and Wahhabi Islam are not things we need to allow to spread across the world) involves vaguely stopping the free expression of religion in another nation (and it really is unclear whether it actually would violate the Constitution to do so, as the text never says anything about it) to put pressure on that religious creeds spreader, i'm up for that. your right to free expression stops when it actually starts trying to carry out Warfare and Terrorism for values counter to the Constitution.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- So equality doesn't apply to foreigners? ;) And seriously, the amendement currently reads "reforms and allows [...] equality for all race, gender, creed" immediately followed by "ceases to support and export [insert particular creed here]". I agree, the US being an ally of Saudi Arabia is, comparing the values each proclaims to support, complete and utter bullshit. That doesn't mean the US should be so opposed to Saudi Arabia to the point it violates its own constitution, though. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 42015 AQD (UTC)