Hard to believe this was all said in 2007. People must have thought he was being hysterical. It’s October 2020, and much of what he feared has come to pass.
Before any other consideration, a peaceful and orderly mechanism to quit and leave the union of los Estados Unidos must be the first order of business.
I am given to understand that the constitution of Iran has no amendment process at all. So if that is true, it is harder to amend than the US constitution.
The speaker mentions Art. V as a vehicle for changing the constitution, then immediately afterward starts talking about the justification for changing the proportions of representation in the Senate. While I agree that that change would be an improvement, the speaker gives the impression that it could be done with an Art.V convention to propose amendments. But it could not; it would require a real constitutional convention as distinct from an Art.V convention.
Speaker talks about using Single Transferrable Vote (STV) for POTUS. I'm pretty sure this system does not accord equal political power to all the voters.
I think this man's problem is that he thinks we live in a Democracy and we don't. We live in a Democratic Republic. What he is advocating for is an entirely different system. That institutionalizes big Federal Government and majority rule. Both of these issues are why we made our constitution the way we did. There are things that need to be changed for sure, but those changes should be to get back to what the founders intended - not to become more like the rest of the world.
@@morningstomper123 minority does not hold all the power, but rather make them have a little more power. We as humans is not rational, thus giving all the power to either the majority and the minority is really dangerous proposition, what happen if someday the majority demand your property to be use as a public space? Or maybe they demand you to be executed just because? It is the majority demand after all, right? US system is different than any other nation because your founding fathers read a lot of ancient greek and roman literature, also you have a long history of british common law which you still use today, and they understand it, its different in most of europe where their understanding of government system evolve around late roman republic and early empire period, and they don't have either common law or magna carta. That's why most of europe today's adopted civil law. it's easy to overlook and disregard what we already have rather than to embrace it.
Hard to believe this was all said in 2007. People must have thought he was being hysterical. It’s October 2020, and much of what he feared has come to pass.
This dude is a hero who will maybe never get his credit
Before any other consideration, a peaceful and orderly mechanism to quit and leave the union of los Estados Unidos must be the first order of business.
I am given to understand that the constitution of Iran has no amendment process at all. So if that is true, it is harder to amend than the US constitution.
The speaker mentions Art. V as a vehicle for changing the constitution, then immediately afterward starts talking about the justification for changing the proportions of representation in the Senate. While I agree that that change would be an improvement, the speaker gives the impression that it could be done with an Art.V convention to propose amendments. But it could not; it would require a real constitutional convention as distinct from an Art.V convention.
why?
@@omnix13 Because Art. V only permits amendments that preserve the equal representation in the Senate, State by State.
ERIC R BINFORD MR INNOVATOR UTUBE
SANDFORD LEVINSON
AUTHOR&
JEFFERY ROSEN
Speaker talks about using Single Transferrable Vote (STV) for POTUS. I'm pretty sure this system does not accord equal political power to all the voters.
I think this man's problem is that he thinks we live in a Democracy and we don't. We live in a Democratic Republic. What he is advocating for is an entirely different system. That institutionalizes big Federal Government and majority rule. Both of these issues are why we made our constitution the way we did. There are things that need to be changed for sure, but those changes should be to get back to what the founders intended - not to become more like the rest of the world.
What's wrong with majority rule? Why should a minority hold power over a majority?
@@morningstomper123 minority does not hold all the power, but rather make them have a little more power. We as humans is not rational, thus giving all the power to either the majority and the minority is really dangerous proposition, what happen if someday the majority demand your property to be use as a public space? Or maybe they demand you to be executed just because? It is the majority demand after all, right? US system is different than any other nation because your founding fathers read a lot of ancient greek and roman literature, also you have a long history of british common law which you still use today, and they understand it, its different in most of europe where their understanding of government system evolve around late roman republic and early empire period, and they don't have either common law or magna carta. That's why most of europe today's adopted civil law. it's easy to overlook and disregard what we already have rather than to embrace it.
So we should stop praising democracy then? I mean they added the word republic so that invalidates the concept of democracy in your view.
What is this dude talking about
I don’t know maybe listen to his words?
@Marsul Gumapu stupidest reply of the year right here