看来只有革命一条路了。 美国宪法的大 bug, 就是没法修复自己， 把自己彻底绑死了， 三权分立， 把自己彻底玩死。 悲哀阿。 gokgs 发表于 2024-06-23 10:32
不用革命，当前美国最容易搞定的政体改革，就是 “限缩联邦权，扩大州权”。将现在的联邦，搞成往 欧盟邦联模式，靠一些。 经过过去150年的渐变，当前，是联邦层面，干预了美国人，大约70% 的相关利益。在实操中，州权被过分打压了。 让各个州，或多个州自行结合的小联盟，探索摸索出，几种可能适合美国未来发展的新路试点，看看最后哪个更好更恰当。 其实用足 第十修正案就可：扩大州权！ 例如，允许不同州可以多个货币、减少联邦可决定能否征税和税率的种类、大幅缩小FBI权力、限缩联邦议会的权力（例如，规定对外协定与对外战争，都需要80%的州同意）、大幅削减联邦最高法院的权力（roe v wade案改判就是肇始，以后就不要全国统一了，各州自己决定。不仅仅堕胎，还有持枪等等等），以及，等等等其他。 另外，仔细看所有的27个修正案，从第18条-第27条 这十条，几乎完全都不需要再做修正。 B777 发表于 2024-06-23 11:30
你这个是历史倒车， 更没意思。 各州分治，本身就是很落后的体制。各州一堆谁也不知道对错的破烂法律，无聊的很。 欧盟都快统一欧洲了。人类终极是大同，大统一。 gokgs 发表于 2024-06-23 12:23
回复 1楼 gokgs 的帖子 这就是美国版的祖宗之法不可变 最后只有革命一条路 wudadan 发表于 2024-06-23 12:10
gutele 发表于 2024-06-23 21:39 再来一两个有竞争力的党
B777 发表于 2024-06-23 21:03 革命的混乱与牺牲，都是美国人民无法接受的。 不如“削联邦集权”，只用将过去150年来，没有写入修正案里的那些议会决定，再次通过投票撤销大部分即可，然后交给总统签字，再接下来，最高院review自己过去150年的所有案例判决逐个重新修改。 这样的话，不需要触发修宪门槛，也能大部分回复 到 林肯 - 小罗斯福 之间的某个状态。
没入修正案的立法直接撤销... 回到林肯和小罗斯福之间的状态... 还嫌倒车开得不猛啊 Mediterranean 发表于 2024-06-23 22:05
与林肯- 小罗斯福 之间的时代，还是有不少差别的。 另外，刚才说了，一个企业是大而全还是小而美，没有定法，只有适合不适合。有拆分了过的更好的，也有合并了过的很好的，各有利弊，各有千秋。 任何体制模式，都不会是完美的，都只是，在某个时间段里，例如30年或50年，能以较低成本较可靠路径和较平滑执行，适度解决大部分棘手难题罢了。 一个国家，也类似！不能说，较多借鉴以前某个时代的做法，就是开倒车。当然，也没必要说，美国应该和英国合并，才是大而全统一的最高指标。 B777 发表于 2024-06-23 22:27
gokgs 发表于 2024-06-24 10:48 你根本不懂美国的问题所在。 美国的问题是恰恰是政府太小， 而不是太集中， 三权分立彻底把政府给绑死了。 政府基本成了摆设， 除了几个时不时被判违宪的总统令， 屁也放不了几个。 资本控制一切， 资本通过 lobby 控制两院， 根本没法通过像样一点的法律。 结果就是整个国家机器基本处于停摆状态。你见过哪个国家整天枪击而对控枪根本不采取任何行动的嘛？为了保障枪棍们持枪的自由， 连普通老百姓的基本生命权都没法保障。 连基本医保都没有， 医疗花费占 GDP 近 20% 。
Centauri 发表于 2024-06-24 11:18 我认为美国没有啥问题 - 现在的体制就是现在这结果。这结果如果偏离了一些人的愿望，那只能说明在这个体制下，你们的愿望还没有/就不可能被满足而已。 楼里大家说的“应该”如何如何，这些“应该”，有哪一个是现实中，有一个非无穷小量的可能性能在短期/中期内实现的？明摆着都不可能实现嘛。。。
dodgers 发表于 2024-06-24 11:59 加一个联邦允许referendum就行，门槛提的高点，每个州需要10%的签名。只能总统大选时候有referendum，并且必须写上法案的经济成本。 有了referendum，两党纠结不愿意解决的问题，也就解决了。 当然也可以要求必须投票，不投票要罚款或者违法。 不过晚了，没戏的。
Centauri 发表于 2024-06-24 12:10 还是我前面说的：如果方法实现了，很好。 但问题就是，这个方法看不到有多大现实的可能性能实现。
gokgs 发表于 2024-06-23 12:23 你这个是历史倒车， 更没意思。 各州分治，本身就是很落后的体制。各州一堆谁也不知道对错的破烂法律，无聊的很。 欧盟都快统一欧洲了。人类终极是大同，大统一。
ADRIAN FLORIDO, HOST: This week marks 236 years since the United States adopted its Constitution. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it out of 13 at the time. The Constitution became the blueprint for our nation's government. Today, almost two and a half centuries later, many Americans are worried about our Constitution. Our next guest has written that, lately, American democracy has begun to wobble, leaning on a Constitution that's grown brittle. Jill Lepore is a professor of U.S. history at Harvard and a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine, where she wrote those words a couple of years ago in an essay about how hard it's become to amend the Constitution and what it might take to save it. Jill Lepore, welcome. JILL LEPORE: Hey. Thanks so much for having me. FLORIDO: Forgive this very basic question, but what is the role of our Constitution? LEPORE: Well, our Constitution governs the government, right? It's the rules about the rules and the rule-makers. And American constitutionalism is just this incredible 18th-century invention. It has a whole bunch of tremendously important innovations that we forget about and rely on all the time, and not all of them are in excellent working order. But our Constitution has lasted for a really long time. People are getting ready already to celebrate what will be its 250th anniversary in 14 years from now. FLORIDO: We've had 27 amendments to the Constitution, but the last meaningful one was in the early '70s. It was more than 50 years ago. Why has it become nearly impossible to do that, to tack on more amendments to the Constitution? And what does that mean for the country? LEPORE: What makes it so hard at the moment is polarization. There are other explanations, right? But it's harder to get a constitutional amendment through Congress. It has to get through two-thirds supermajority in both houses. Then it goes to the states and has to be ratified by three quarters of the states. And in a polarized world, like, Congress does nothing. Congress does basically zero at this point. So the idea that both houses of Congress are going to pass an amendment to the Constitution by two-thirds majority is just not going to happen. And that was not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution when they were writing this provision. There were no political parties. Not only were there not polarized parties, there weren't parties at all. So they just couldn't really imagine that this two-thirds requirement would be as high a bar as they set. But so what do you do if you've watched effort after effort to amend the Constitution fail? Well, then you're going to really try to influence appointments to the Supreme Court, and that really politicizes the nomination and confirmation process, which we have seen. And so now you have this whole - you know, a couple generations ago, conservatives questioned the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and questioned judicial activism. And now progressives do that. FLORIDO: The fact is that the Supreme Court can change the Constitution, as you say, by simply, you know, reinterpreting it, which is, you know, not a thrilling prospect right now, for example, for liberals who are unhappy with the current conservative court. But, like, more broadly speaking, is that really such a bad thing that that is the way that the document changes? LEPORE: It's a very different mechanism. You know, most people like that method when they like who's on the court, and they don't like that method when they don't like who's on the court. You can't find a lot of people who are inspiringly consistent on their positions in this regard. FLORIDO: What is the risk of having a constitution that can no longer be amended? LEPORE: Well, if you think about it, there's really three ways that you can change fundamental law. You could have a revolution. You could convince the judiciary to interpret the Constitution differently in a way that updates it, makes more sense to you or you could amend the Constitution. And we have kind of really only one of those things currently working. We can go to the Supreme Court and ask the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution differently. That doesn't really work right now in the sense that the Supreme Court is not looking to make change. It's looking to restore an original Constitution. Right? It's a regressive kind of change. So what - an amendment doesn't work just because of polarization. So what's left is the risk of insurrection. That's the danger. The danger of having an unamendable Constitution is that the risk of insurrection rises. FLORIDO: Our Constitution has lasted a pretty long time when you compare it to the constitutions of other countries that are sometimes tossed out after just a couple of decades. What does that say about our Constitution? LEPORE: Jefferson famously wrote to Madison and said, you know, I think our Constitution should really only last for a generation. It's all about the consent of the governed. The unborn can't consent. So really, every generation, maybe every 20 years or so, we should do this all over again. And Madison said, OK, you weren't at the constitutional convention that sweaty heat dome summer in 1787. It was really damn hard. Keep that to yourself. Like, that's a bad idea. So he didn't want to go back and redo it every 20 years, but he did actually think amendment would happen fairly frequently. Like, that's the idea. Like, you could have constitutional change without violence. The problem with a constitution that has lasted so long that can no longer be amended is amendment was meant to be the remedy against insurrection. So it's not an accident that people think about this right now, and we've just been through an insurrection. I think a lot of people are worried there's likely to be another insurrection. FLORIDO: You lead this really fascinating project called the Amendments Project, which is compiling information on every amendment to the Constitution proposed in Congress. You've found more than 10,000 failed attempts to change the Constitution. What are you learning from all of these failures? LEPORE: A political scientist once said that the failed efforts to amend the Constitution are kind of a better index of the nature of Americans' problems constitutionally than anything else, and they kind of are. Like, you look at them, and you see all these efforts to put in changes that, you know, were not politically possible. Because, remember, for most of American history, most of us who are living today would not have been eligible to vote, right? Women couldn't vote before 1920. Black men couldn't vote before 1870 and effectively really couldn't reliably vote before 1964. FLORIDO: Much less were any of these people involved in the drafting of the Constitution. LEPORE: Right. You go back to the 18th century and discover abortion is not in the Constitution. This is not shocking. Like, it's not a shocking piece of information. But if you look beyond Congress and look at what people who were disenfranchised were actually asking for, there's this incredible wealth of petitions, complaints, laments, private letters, diaries, organizations that are asking for things all the time. That is a tradition that the court never looks to when it asks, what's the history of the Constitution? Because it's just not in its ambit of what it considers to be constitutional discourse. But Americans have been clamoring for constitutional change from the very beginning in ways that are really thrilling and exciting and worth contemplating. Because if our Constitution is going to be interpreted exclusively through the court, we really need a richer, fuller past. FLORIDO: Well, I've been speaking with Harvard professor of U.S. history Jill Lepore about the U.S. Constitution. Thanks for joining us. LEPORE: Thanks so much. Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information. NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
不用革命，当前美国最容易搞定的政体改革，就是 “限缩联邦权，扩大州权”。将现在的联邦，搞成往 欧盟邦联模式，靠一些。 经过过去150年的渐变，当前，是联邦层面，干预了美国人，大约70% 的相关利益。在实操中，州权被过分打压了。
让各个州，或多个州自行结合的小联盟，探索摸索出，几种可能适合美国未来发展的新路试点，看看最后哪个更好更恰当。
其实用足 第十修正案就可：扩大州权！ 例如，允许不同州可以多个货币、减少联邦可决定能否征税和税率的种类、大幅缩小FBI权力、限缩联邦议会的权力（例如，规定对外协定与对外战争，都需要80%的州同意）、大幅削减联邦最高法院的权力（roe v wade案改判就是肇始，以后就不要全国统一了，各州自己决定。不仅仅堕胎，还有持枪等等等），以及，等等等其他。
另外，仔细看所有的27个修正案，从第18条-第27条 这十条，几乎完全都不需要再做修正。
这就是美国版的祖宗之法不可变 最后只有革命一条路
你这个是历史倒车， 更没意思。 各州分治，本身就是很落后的体制。各州一堆谁也不知道对错的破烂法律，无聊的很。
欧盟都快统一欧洲了。人类终极是大同，大统一。
你这是左派主张。
可是，意大利刚通过了 “各大区的自治法”，大幅削减国家中央集权，将自由还给各大区。意大利有，相当于大区级别的，20个行政区划。
另外，各国利益不同，各国右翼上台都是反欧盟的，矛盾无法调和与妥协，所以，欧盟会越来越低效和无用的。我没有建议完全欧盟化，而是，借鉴后往欧盟模式靠一些。
全美国这么中央集权，就是各种矛盾各种变革没法尝试的主要原因，抑制了美国的自我更新与进步。
美国自己的基础教育和底层劳力是不行的，为了科技进步与社会稳定，必须多吸收全球移民，必须多样化自治化，必须“去中心”化。
中国不一样，因为历史文化和文明体系完全不同，所以比较推崇较多的中央精英威权。
可见，过去15年，美国自己的制度，成了阻碍自己发展的负面落后因素。
革命的混乱与牺牲，都是美国人民无法接受的。
不如“削联邦集权”，只用将过去150年来，没有写入修正案里的那些议会决定，再次通过投票撤销大部分即可，然后交给总统签字，再接下来，最高院review自己过去150年的所有案例判决逐个重新修改。
这样的话，不需要触发修宪门槛，也能大部分回复 到 林肯 - 小罗斯福 之间的某个状态。
就像企业集团的拆分或者合并或者出售某个部门或其他方式重组，都是，因为“旧法旧体系”，抑制了自由发展，或内部各自觉得分配不平衡，才做的决定，没有最好的绝对的某种办法，只有最合适当下的相对阶段性抉择。
当前体制，没有第三党崛起的可能。
1992年有过一个改革党，川普还在其中掺和过。
没入修正案的立法直接撤销... 回到林肯和小罗斯福之间的状态... 还嫌倒车开得不猛啊
屁民只能偷生。
与林肯- 小罗斯福 之间的时代，还是有不少差别的。
另外，刚才说了，一个企业是大而全还是小而美，没有定法，只有适合不适合。有拆分了过的更好的，也有合并了过的很好的，各有利弊，各有千秋。 任何体制模式，都不会是完美的，都只是，在某个时间段里，例如30年或50年，能以较低成本较可靠路径和较平滑执行，适度解决大部分棘手难题罢了。
一个国家，也类似！不能说，较多借鉴以前某个时代的做法，就是开倒车。当然，也没必要说，美国应该和英国合并，才是大而全统一的最高指标。
你都想让现在6：3的高院直接review纠纷了...本来保守派还得筹钱有选择性地打官司、剥夺公民权。你这下可好，直接大笔一挥，让纳税人出钱，让神棍高院积极主动推翻判例剥夺公民权。
你根本不懂美国的问题所在。
美国的问题是恰恰是政府太小， 而不是太集中， 三权分立彻底把政府给绑死了。 政府基本成了摆设， 除了几个时不时被判违宪的总统令， 屁也放不了几个。
资本控制一切， 资本通过 lobby 控制两院， 根本没法通过像样一点的法律。
结果就是整个国家机器基本处于停摆状态。你见过哪个国家整天枪击而对控枪根本不采取任何行动的嘛？为了保障枪棍们持枪的自由， 连普通老百姓的基本生命权都没法保障。
连基本医保都没有， 医疗花费占 GDP 近 20% 。
楼里大家说的“应该”如何如何，这些“应该”，有哪一个是现实中，有一个非无穷小量的可能性能在短期/中期内实现的？明摆着都不可能实现嘛。。。
二修别指望了。加个修正案远比减个修正案来得容易，连个ERA都加不了。
我也觉得就这结果了，双方各显神通呗，规则允许范围之内。老百姓哭着喊着支持堕胎权，包括红州的，不也哭着喊着继续选神棍吗？所以就这样了，the minority rule the country
有了referendum，两党纠结不愿意解决的问题，也就解决了。
当然也可以要求必须投票，不投票要罚款或者违法。
不过晚了，没戏的。
还是我前面说的：如果方法实现了，很好。
但问题就是，这个方法看不到有多大现实的可能性能实现。
是的，没戏，选总统都不是公投
合久必分，分久必合吧