4 ms·

IMO part of the reason for the sacredness of the Constitution is that it is nearly impossible to change. 3/4 of states must approve a change, a very high bar. M

IMO part of the reason for the sacredness of the Constitution is that it is nearly impossible to change. 3/4 of states must approve a change, a very high bar. Maybe in the 1790s when there were comparatively few states and fears of tyranny were more reality based this was more reasonable, but with 50 states it's very unrealistic. The other reason it's sacred is that we Americans revere our founders to an absurd degree. They were great men but not gods. They were deeply flawed, just like leaders of today.

alkonaut 11y ago
Holding the founding fathers in high regard isn't a bad thing - but holding an outdated constitution in high regard may be damaging. It should be hard to change a constitution. It's amazing how a lot of the US electorate finds the constitution so flawless, yet thinks "Washington" and the political establishment to be flawed - as if the political establishment is a product of itself and not of the legislation. I think winner-takes-all two party systems have the intrinsic problem that changes (such as to gerrymandering) will always benefit one side more than the other and thus it's hard to pass.
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  I think that as it gets harder to change a constitution, judicial workarounds will become more frequent. This then causes more anger around not following the written law in the general population. Since the founders are Gods who wrote the Constitution, defying this law is heresy. Political evolution is slow until the next big court case. At the other end of the spectrum it's so easy to change that your rights can be removed in any old vote. Political evolution occurs at a faster pace. I'd like different levels of review for certain pieces of the puzzle. Editing the first amendment? 3/4 of all states seems fair. Giving DC voting rights? Maybe a lower bar is appropriate, but not quite an up or down vote level.

alkonaut 11y ago

Holding the founding fathers in high regard isn't a bad thing - but holding an outdated constitution in high regard may be damaging. It should be hard to change a constitution. It's amazing how a lot of the US electorate finds the constitution so flawless, yet thinks "Washington" and the political establishment to be flawed - as if the political establishment is a product of itself and not of the legislation. I think winner-takes-all two party systems have the intrinsic problem that changes (such as to gerrymandering) will always benefit one side more than the other and thus it's hard to pass.

Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
I think that as it gets harder to change a constitution, judicial workarounds will become more frequent. This then causes more anger around not following the written law in the general population. Since the founders are Gods who wrote the Constitution, defying this law is heresy. Political evolution is slow until the next big court case. At the other end of the spectrum it's so easy to change that your rights can be removed in any old vote. Political evolution occurs at a faster pace. I'd like different levels of review for certain pieces of the puzzle. Editing the first amendment? 3/4 of all states seems fair. Giving DC voting rights? Maybe a lower bar is appropriate, but not quite an up or down vote level.