Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Andy Reed's avatar

I don't mean to disparage the concept behind this, but I have serious reservations about its potential value the way it's written. The language of the proposed Amendment, sounding very grown-up and erudite and like other, 19th- and early 20th-century amendments, is totally wrong.

For one thing, it is subject to so much possible interperetation and misinterpretation by right-wing judges, courts, representatives, and others -- including a future administration -- that it will never be able to take effect in an effective manner.

For example, in Section 4 it concludes that "Congress shall have the power to ..." BUT NO REPERCUSSIONS IF CONGRESS REFUSES TO DO SO."

Second, it has all sorts of promises but, again, no enforcement. "People shall have the right" -- well, if the Thielists buy Congress and tell them to override that, or to "pass legislation" that actually enables private, monopoly control over AI systems or applications, who's gonna do anything about it? NO-ONE.

Finally, why two years after its ratification to take effect. Hell, no. It takes effect UPON RATIFICATION by 3/4 of the states. Period. On that very day.

The point is, using 19th-century language and style as a way to pull us out of corporate, fascist control of such systems is absurd. Plain English. Every term defined and identified. No future lege deciding to reinterpret it.

This really sounds like a traditional, old-school Democratic approach to a problem, rather than what we need, which is strong, no-nonsense, no-bullshit language and policies.

At age 72, I've had 54 years of Democrats playing by old rulebooks and compromising before a policy is even on the table (witness Obama's ACA, which didn't even begin with universal coverage, because he knew he'd have to bargain it away -- so he bargained it away in advance, and started on the 3-yard line instead of the 70th). Even good, visionary, progressive Democrats who UNDERSTOOD the legislative process -- I'm thinking LBJ, but also Clinton to some degree -- have watched as Republicans have run rings around us for 40 years because they understand A) how to make the rules work for them; B) how to change the rules whenever they need to; and C) how to ignore the rules (and the law!) altogether without qualms to get what they want.

And we write amendments for John Quincy Adams.

Expand full comment
Ava's avatar

Lovely thought. However: a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, followed by ratification in 3/4 of the states. That will not happen: we won't get the vote in either the House or the Senate and red states outnumber blue states.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts