[lhopki01]

Yes I understand it was designed that way 250 years ago. What I don't understand is why so many Americans think that it was perfect. Why aren't Americans open to the idea that their system of "separation of powers" is fundamentally flawed. I went to an American school and separation of powers is talked about is as if it's the only possible right answer.

The US quickly realized that the loose federation wasn't going to work and centralized a lot of power. It should continue to evolve it's system.

It's worth noting that even the US doesn't think it's system is a good idea. When it imposes a new government on countries (like Iraq) it chooses a parliamentary system.

[oblio]

Heh, the separation isn't even the worst part.

The fact that the US Constitution is basically more sacred that the Bible when you talk to the average American is even weirder. The Founding Fathers are the Original Gods (Gangsters?).

[lhopki01]

The issues are intertwined. The Constitution is sacred so therefor the system of government it's setup is sacred and so on.

[RupertSalt]

A sola scriptura republic

[anthonypasq]

responded the same to the person you responsed to but perhaps this is a decent explanation.

because theres no example in history that has worked better. Its unclear how much of the success of the US should be attributed to the Constitution (what history would have looked like if the US had a canadian constitution for example), but what cant be argued is that the US is the most successful political body in world history and it is the old continuous Constitution in the world.

Under that lense it makes sense that Americans are fairly conservative about changing the constitution and why the founders are so revered. Its just fucking worked out great for us until now. Its really a miracle in many ways.

[ceejayoz]

> what cant be argued is that the US is the most successful political body in world history and it is the old continuous Constitution in the world

That’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_San_Marino.

[anthonypasq]

sigh... ty for the irrelevant and useless pedantry. inescapable on this forum

[ceejayoz]

It’s a factually incorrect claim.

The other bit, “the most successful political body in world history”, isn’t even a falsifiable claim; it’s pure opinion.

The Pope might disagree on it, for example.

[anthonypasq]

i will note your continued pedantry and wish you a nice day

[Aloisius]

> When it imposes a new government on countries (like Iraq) it chooses a parliamentary system.

I'd avoid reading too much into this. The US simply tries to avoid making too many major changes to the system of government and Iraq was familiar with a parliamentary system already.

The Empire of Japan was a parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy. Today it is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. That doesn't mean the US loves kings/emperors.

By contrast, the Dominican Republic stayed as a presidential system.

[anthonypasq]

> What I don't understand is why so many Americans think that it was perfect.

because theres no example in history that has worked better. Its unclear how much of the success of the US should be attributed to the Constitution (what history would have looked like if the US had a canadian constitution for example), but what cant be argued is that the US is the most successful political body in world history and it is the oldest continuous Constitution in the world.

Under that lens it makes sense that Americans are fairly conservative about changing the constitution and why the founders are so revered. Its just fucking worked out great for us until now. Its really a miracle in many ways.

[lordnacho]

> what cant be argued is that the US is the most successful political body in world history

You can very much argue about this.

If you've ever had the task of writing an essay about the nature of success, I don't think you would offer a sweeping statement like this.

[lhopki01]

There are plenty of examples from history and now of better governed countries. I don't know how anyone can look at the US and think it's success is because of constitution and not from being the 3rd largest country on earth with a land empire full of abundant resources that it's never given up and successfully assimilated via imported populations.

[anthonypasq]

why would you muck with one of the most complicated systems humans have ever created on the off chance you fuck everything up when the current system has made you the most successful civilization in human history and has done so for 250 years.

i mean is it really hard to imagine why Americans might be wary to change things? maintaining a stable civilization is a pretty precarious undertaking.

[ceejayoz]

> why would you muck with one of the most complicated systems humans have ever created

That system explicitly encourages mucking with it. We have elections every 2/4/6 years. It has an amendment process. Parts of it, like judicial review and qualified immunity, were just plain invented.

Per Jefferson:

“On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.”

[anthonypasq]

so youre appealing to Jefferson to support your argument that we shouldnt revere the founders?

All im doing is explaining why Americans in the current moment are conservative about the constitution. Why are you failing to acknowledge this? Im not making a value judgement im explaining why people think this way.

[ceejayoz]

I'm noting that the Founders weren't deluded or egotistical enough to think themselves as perfect as American conservatives treat them today. We should not revere them, and I think they'd agree with that.