• Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why? Because a lot of their ideas were good. Creating a system of government that is immune or even resilient to corruption is very difficult, but the US has done pretty good all things considered.

    • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would say the Swedish constitution is substantially better, yet I never see anybody cite it as a supreme authority of morality. We have also changed it regularly since its total revision in 1974. I am not saying that the American one is necessarily bad, but I am saying it is just a law and should not be worshipped.

      Edit: if you want to give it a read, the official translation can be accessed here (pdf)

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Treating the constitution as if it cant be changed because it is “perfect” is wildly different than not wanting the government to boundary test how it can skirt the constitution to get what it wants. When the US government doesnt follow the rules that it was supposed to be bound to via the constitution, it is almost never a good thing.

        The constitution set rules for how to change it legitimately. It was designed to be changed over time not flagrently ignored.

        • yata@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the problem, it cannot be changed anymore, the base problems with the system itself prevents it from doing so.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like you have an issue with these “base problems”, not the Constitution itself

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Who are you and why does it benefit you to support this narrative worshipping of the constitution? Because every response you’ve made in this thread is either trying to support the constitution as infallible or mock anyone making arguments against it.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                None of you idiots understand how the US government actually works and it annoys me.

                • AnonTwo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Haven’t seen you make any attempt to prove you know otherwise. You just seem like an idiot debasing other people’s arguments rather than making any arguments of your own.

                  Hell the very post I was responding to you didn’t even make an argument, just tried to argue the person wasn’t talking about the constitution, when it would obviously be part of the base as a foundation of the country.

                  If it annoys you and you can’t actually provide anything, you should just leave. If you can provide something, then don’t waste people’s time.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ve said multiple times

                    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

                    The Constitution can be changed, and we have done so multiple times

                    These are the core things that it annoys me people don’t understand.

        • Talaraine@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          100%. The only people that are gungho to overhaul the constitution at this point in time mean to do it irreparable harm. It’s a tough thing to navigate when you don’t believe the politicians involved have anything but the public’s unquestioning obedience in mind.

        • Dudewitbow
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The constitution was designed to be vaguely descriptive, so that in the case that society does change, then statements can be interpreted in a way that supports the new view of the modern country.

          For instance, while not in the constitution, the government set up no offical state language or religion, in the case that society had changed making what they said redundant.

      • SkyNTP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Constitutions form the foundation on which everything else–laws, the economy, public services, politics, culture, national security–is built.

        It’s one thing to look at how a new constitution might solve our current social ills, or to demonstrate how the old one is imperfect, it’s another thing to really consider the side effects of a change in constitution. What things we would lose that we take for granted, and to do so honestly, and critically?

        Would America still be an imperialistic hegemony with a swedish constitution? If no, are Americans really truly ready to give up the benefits they enjoy that come with being a global hegemony?

        We won’t really find answers to these questions in a tweet.

      • yemmly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who is the head of state of Sweden? How are they selected? What is their term of service in the role?

        • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          On paper it is the hereditary monarch, but they have no real power, so de facto it is the prime minister. Their role is to lead and to appoint ministers in the government, which is considered Sweden’s leading body.

          The prime minister is selected by the parliament, the representation of the Swedish public, which is also responsible for deciding on laws and holding them and the government in check overall.

          The prime minister has no term limit but they tend to lose support from the parliament (which gets elected every four years) sooner or later. For instance, the last prime minister, Magdalena Andersson, stayed less than a year.

          Edit: fixed typo

          • yemmly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So why maintain the hereditary monarchy, even in a limited capacity? What role does it serve?

            • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good question. Since 1974, the monarch’s role has been reduced to a purely ceremonial one because of common sense, but then and still today a lot of people think they’re valuable for our shared identity as a people. However, an ever-growing amount of Swedes such as me whole-heartedly disagree and advocate republicanism.

              • yemmly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                One fine day, when the monarchy has been relegated to the annals of history, where will Swedes turn to find their national identity, assuming a national identity is worthwhile?

                • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Another good question. We do have a shared language and culture, but overall, our identity as a nation is slowly eroding – because everyone speaks English anyway, English is used whenever there is anything international involved. Because our standards of living are so high and because we are just cogs in a giant economic machine, we no longer have to resort to traditions or religion for comfort and stability. Also, the realisation that we are ultimately all humans and that countries are quite arbitrary is quite inevitable.

                  I can say that I, because a perfect society is quite literally impossible and because ultimatly the only thing that humans want is the fulfillment of their desires, believe that the rationality that will eventually be forced upon us by thinking machines will ultimately lead to a historical end station of artificially created pleasure. My main logic is that everything we do is driven by some desire, which means that a perfect state in whch all desires are fulfilled also has no actions, which are required by societies, and that ever-accellerating technological development will show a way around this by artificially modifying the brain to be in this state.

                  However, in the turbulence of modern society, I fail to see what the way there is going to look like – what is going to happen to nations, language, culture and the like when rationality renders them obsolete – there are just too many factors at play. I don’t think it is going to be pretty.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The West Wing S06 E14 - The Wake Up Call is a pretty good episode about the US constitution as a model.

        We’re aware there are better constitutions, especially more modern ones. But if the US were to rewrite our constitution today, we’d be the United States of Bank of America. We have to appreciate what we do have or it’ll be gone.

        The reverence for our constitution is important because it helps to enforce it. The piece of paper doesn’t do much on its own.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah but a lot were also bad which is why it’s stupid when people act like the opinions of the founding fathers should matter more than the opinions of contemporary Americans when the same founding fathers were smart enough to realize the constitution should be a living document and not a holy totem to use as a club to stifle any progress.

      • Gigan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think there were only a couple bad ideas, which have been mostly fixed by amendments. It is a living document, it has changed over time. You could argue that it should be easier to change, but there would be consequences for that too.

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think we can find a middleground between “fuck em” and “their word is law”

        In fact most of the time the people trying to make their word out to be law are using the most loose and self-pandering interpretation they can.

        Like you said, the same founding fathers did not want it to be this way. I wish we’d argue harder how unamerican it is that people are treating the founding fathers with zealotry.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They literally designed the Constitution to be the foundation of all law in the country.

          Their words (at least the specific ones in the Constitution) literally are law.

          • AnonTwo@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, the ones specific to the constitution

            Because those words can be changed. They were made to be changed. They were intended to be changed.

            They’re not meant to be worshipped, they’re meant to do their job, and change as needed to keep up with the times.

            The founding fathers had their fears, and the constitution was made to repel those fears. And little by little we use their name to draw those fears side by side what they created.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              They’re not meant to be worshipped

              I think the central problem here is a lot of kids conflating “this is literally the ultimate law of the land” with “I have a religious reverence for this document”.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fine. If you can get agreement across the states as to which of those ideas are bad - you can amend them away.

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know, but my point is that the founding fathers acknowledged they weren’t infallible which makes appeals to tradition and authority that many use to prevent progress in the US are extra dumb.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            …which has nothing to do with the Constitution.

            Unless the appeal to authority is a literal appeal to literal legal authority.

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              …But it does have to do with what NOT_RICK was discussing prior to that post, which had to do with the constitution.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not really. Apparently, some people are acting like idiots because they think the founding fathers would have thought a certain way. Sure, okay, sounds like a problem.

                The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not a problem.

                Two separate things only conflated by the uneducated.

                • AnonTwo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Okay well, you sound uneducated to me. And since you can’t finish a single…single post in this entire thread without insulting people, I don’t see any point to arguing here.

                  Just…be mad I guess. Just try not to think you sound as smart or as mature as you think you do.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of their ideas I personally think would be amazing: allegedly, Thomas Jefferson predicted the Construction would only last less than twenty years before we would completely overhaul our core document of governance. I believe rebuilding the specific details every couple decades would’ve helped tremendously…

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          ~Every single generation since the founding of this country

          I agree though. I can think of many times in history that a rewriting of the bill of rights would have excluded free speech. Imagine if the current supreme court had the authority to revoke the separation of church and state, and mandate that all public schools have a Protestant focus.

            • Neato@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Wisdom” like the 3/5ths compromise. They were writing it specifically because they were completely terrified of strong central governments and autocracy. They didn’t give one shit about anyone other than themselves and their rich compatriots. You used to have to be a landowner to vote. They had some good ideas but the fact a functional system of government came out of them that has any usage in the modern day is more of a happy accident than any real forethought.

              • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                The 3/5ths compromise is an interesting and often misunderstood one. Slave owning states wanted their slaves counted in the state’s population, because more people means more representation in the House of Representatives, and more electoral college votes. Since slaves didn’t have any say in politics, this solely benefited the people who owned them. Free states didn’t want slaves counted towards the census for that exact reason, and the 3/5ths compromise came out of that disagreement. It was never about how much of a person slaves are, and the bad guys got their way by exploiting their slaves for even more political power.

              • MxM111@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I will take accidentally being right (and tested over time) over thoughtfully being wrong.

                  • MxM111@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Well, it’s not like they randomly spewed the words in foundational documents. They did think it through. Luck was about historical conditions that they were in, so that they could make these conclusions.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          One party is seeking a constitutional convention. In order to install a permanent Republican dictatorship.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It pains me to admit I see your point. If we had developed some mechanism early on where problematic passages or even sections could be democratically identified, as well as a system to propose possible changes for vote…but now? Yikes.

          Somehow, I want to believe it is possible to revolutionize our government, but without the usual bloodshed. I just wish I had any clue how… :p

    • yata@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It has done a horrible job of it all things considered. Basically all the fabled checks and balances have turned out to be based on nothing but good faith. The founders refused to consider that partisanship would evolve at all, let alone to the extremes it has turned into today.

      Lots of other Western democracies are doing a lot better job at it, not least because they have been allowed to evolve and change with the times, while the core of the US political system has petrified in all its archaism.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Creating a system of government that is immune or even resilient to corruption is very difficult, but the US has done pretty good all things considered.

      What cave were you living in between 2016 and 2020?

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Creating a system of government that is immune or even resilient to corruption is very difficult, but the US has done pretty good all things considered.

      Really? You think so, even tho we are essentially an Oligarchy with a huge amount of corruption, especially in the Supreme Court

      • Josh@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, but consider the fact that you are able to write that, and even take to the streets vocally demand change. Things might be bad, but you truly have no idea what it means to live in fear of your government.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        More than others. There are mechanisms for change. Most old world change meant conquer and then you might change things. If you don’t die first.

        • yata@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          More than others, but definitely not more than other Western democracies, considerably less than them in fact.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We made it less than a century before the first civil war. That’s an epic failure in my book.