4 ms·
I would argue that this means we should fix the constitution through the amendment process, not toss the baby out with the bathwater.
by redblacktree 9y ago
I would argue that this means we should fix the constitution through the amendment process, not toss the baby out with the bathwater.
- intopieces 9y agoVeneration based on historical precedence is a fundamental weakness. It reduces the document to no more than a talisman. Powerless, ineffectual, and clung to out of comfort. It should be scrapped entirely and redebated every 50 years.
- mnm1 9y agoI can't imagine a more horrific scenario than a constitutional convention. The day that happens is the day America dies. Ok, probably a few days later when they decide to throw out the current ratification rules out and just rewrite everything. A bunch of un-elected idiots rewriting the constitution. I hope they use a new name. Calling that new country USA will be confusing. Regardless, I will not stick around here for that. Third time around is bound to be an even bigger disaster than the first two.
- redblacktree 9y agoWho said anything about a constitutional convention? The amendment process[0] is not so extreme. We've done it 27 times, most recently in 1992. [0]: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution