3 ms·

and the US has the absolute worst recording on changing their constitution. The last amendment (the 27th) was ratified in 1992 and took nearly 203 years to beco

and the US has the absolute worst recording on changing their constitution. The last amendment (the 27th) was ratified in 1992 and took nearly 203 years to become law. I think they should lower the barriers to getting stuff done.

ams6110 10y ago
Absolutely not. Changing the structural framwork of the nation is not something to be done based on an issue's short term popularity. If the issue can maintain consistent support for a decade or more that's a lot better signal that it might be a good long-term idea.
- reillyse 10y ago
  Sure, but 2 centuries is a little long.
  - peyton 10y ago
    Is there another current government that's older than 2 centuries? I think we made a tradeoff for stability. Arguably that worked out well.
    - lmm 10y ago
      The UK government is continuous from at least 1688 and arguably earlier.
tboettch 10y ago
What an incredibly misleading statement. Even a minimal review of the history[1] shows that the 27th amendment was not under consideration for 203 years; rather, it was originally proposed in 1789, and interest in it was not revived for roughly 200 years. As to the other amendments[2], 203 years is an extreme and unrepresentative outlier. The original bill of rights took a little over 2 years to ratify, and nearly all of the rest have taken under 1.5 years. The only one to take longer than 3 years was the highly controversial 16th amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_by_the_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unit...
- reillyse 10y ago
  The wikipedia article you quote doesn't back up your claim. In fact quite the opposite. From the article. 1) The 27th amendment was first introduced in the house in 1789. It was first ratified by a state in 1789 "Maryland – December 19, 1789" It was last ratified in 1992 "Michigan – May 7, 1992"

ams6110 10y ago

Absolutely not. Changing the structural framwork of the nation is not something to be done based on an issue's short term popularity. If the issue can maintain consistent support for a decade or more that's a lot better signal that it might be a good long-term idea.

reillyse 10y ago
Sure, but 2 centuries is a little long.
- peyton 10y ago
  Is there another current government that's older than 2 centuries? I think we made a tradeoff for stability. Arguably that worked out well.
  - lmm 10y ago
    The UK government is continuous from at least 1688 and arguably earlier.

tboettch 10y ago

What an incredibly misleading statement. Even a minimal review of the history[1] shows that the 27th amendment was not under consideration for 203 years; rather, it was originally proposed in 1789, and interest in it was not revived for roughly 200 years. As to the other amendments[2], 203 years is an extreme and unrepresentative outlier. The original bill of rights took a little over 2 years to ratify, and nearly all of the rest have taken under 1.5 years. The only one to take longer than 3 years was the highly controversial 16th amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_by_the_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unit...

reillyse 10y ago
The wikipedia article you quote doesn't back up your claim. In fact quite the opposite. From the article. 1) The 27th amendment was first introduced in the house in 1789. It was first ratified by a state in 1789 "Maryland – December 19, 1789" It was last ratified in 1992 "Michigan – May 7, 1992"