The most telling facts that the U.S. Constitution is crippling American democracy is when Americans themselves, when in charge in creating the constitution for a country they've occupied, would rather use the British Westminster-style parliament than what they themselves have back home. How good is the British model? Using Canada as an example:
How would a parliamentary system handle a shutdown? It wouldn't have one. In Canada a few years ago, around the same time Washington was gripped in yet another debt-ceiling crisis, a budget impasse in Ottawa led to new elections, where the parties fought to win over voters to their fiscal plan. One side won, then enacted its planproblem solved.
And this part nails down what's wrong with the American model perfectly:
As the famed Spanish political scientist Juan Linz wrote in an influential 1990 essay, dysfunction, trending toward constitutional breakdown, is baked into our DNA. Any system that gives equally strong claims of democratic legitimacy to both the legislature and the president, while also allowing each to be controlled by people with fundamentally different agendas, is doomed to fail. America has muddled through thus far by compromise, but what happens when the sides no longer wish to compromise? "No democratic principle exists to resolve disputes between the executive and the legislature about which of the two actually represents the will of the people," Linz wrote.
"There are about 30 countries, mostly in Latin America, that have adopted American-style systems. All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the Linzian nightmare at one time or another, often repeatedly," according to Yale constitutional law professor Bruce Ackerman, who calls for a transition to a parliamentary system. By "Linzian nightmare," Ackerman means constitutional crisis your full range of political violence, revolution, coup, and worse. But well short of war, you can end up in a state of "crisis governance," he writes. "President and house may merely indulge a taste for endless backbiting, mutual recrimination, and partisan deadlock. Worse yet, the contending powers may use the constitutional tools at their disposal to make life miserable for each other: The house will harass the executive, and the president will engage in unilateral action whenever he can get away with it." He wrote that almost a decade and a half ago, long before anyone had heard of Barack Obama, let alone the Tea Party.
|Sarah Palin's Facebook Page|
|Why People Care About Whether Beyoncé Lip-Synched Or Not Her Performance|
|Scottish Referendum on Independence Explained|
|For Canada, Trans-Pacific Partnership May Be Worst-Ever Agreement|
|No place for State in our hard drives?|
|“What jobs will be created and what jobs will disappear?”|
|Gira Lab Universal Timer|
|How to Avoid Jury Duty|
|Japanese Robot Serves Ice Cream From Inside a Vending Machine|
|CaptchaTweet: Write Tweets in Captcha Form|
|“Long live the instant gratification economy—and the increasingly sophisticated technology that’s enabling it.”|
|Boston Dynamics' Robot does Parkour|
|“Computer algorithms increasingly control and decide our future.”|
|Why, Typewriters Are Alive and Well, Thank you|
|“Robots are key to a new wave of local agriculture.”|
|“Authoritarianism depends upon people getting used to hearing the things that they want to hear.”|
|The (Very Scary) People of Public Transit|