4 ms·
My big worry, if we allow The Second Amendment to be rewritten and/or re-interpreted (to "modernize") it, is that a precedent is set -- it will then be much eas
by jlgaddis 11y ago
My big worry, if we allow The Second Amendment to be rewritten and/or re-interpreted (to "modernize") it, is that a precedent is set -- it will then be much easier to allow any of the other amendments to be rewritten and/or reinterpreted to align with the beliefs of those who are currently in power.
- soneil 11y agoThat ship's already sailed. We already depend on the scotus to "fill in the details" in deciding & applying the intent of the constitution & bill of rights. Hell, we've already struck down amendments in their entirety (think Prohibition). This is a task they're already well equipped for, well practiced in, and pretty much designed for. (And I believe it was always meant to be this way. The wisest idea "the founding fathers" left us with, was that of amendments - that none of this was carved in stone, nor should it be, nor could be.)
- DrScump 11y agoProhibition (the Volstead Act) was "struck down" by the formal Constitutional Amendment process, not by the courts or by statute process.
- Ujio 11y agoI don't see a problem with "modernization". Constitutional documents should be living documents, tuned for clarity and for the times. Of course, such changes should not simply be a matter of passing a new bill. There should be significant political hurdles involved.
- nnain 11y agoKeeping the constitution open to changes seems to be an OK idea. India has had 100 amendments to the constitution since just 1950 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Cons... .