4 ms·
The Constitution and Amendments though typically only work when they expand rights/freedoms rather than contract rights/freedoms. A good example is the 18th Am
by drawkbox 6y ago
The Constitution and Amendments though typically only work when they expand rights/freedoms rather than contract rights/freedoms. A good example is the 18th Amendment [1] which was drug prohibition of alcohol in 1920 which was reversed with the 21st Amendment [2] in 1933. The addition took away rights/freedoms and it led to a bad phase in America as well as created mafias and underground black markets that sapped money from the regular markets. Interestingly, the country went through the Great Depression towards the end of that timeline.
James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, most of the Federalist Papers AND the Bill of Rights, wrote the Bill of Rights specifically for individual freedoms so that the states would not want to rewrite the Constitution in another convention. Any addition to the Constitution that doesn't add more freedoms, rights or expand the power of the people and their pursuit of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence, will be misguided and discarded. Using amendments to strip away the main body of the Constitution, unless for more rights/freedoms, would be an incorrect use of the design goals.
Almost immediately after beginning to meet in 1789, the first Congress, led by James Madison, began to consider amendments to the Constitution proposed by the state ratifying conventions. George Washington and Madison had personally pledged to consider amendments because they realized that some amendments would be necessary to reduce pressure for a second constitutional convention that might drastically alter and weaken the new federal government. Fastening on Anti-Federalist criticisms that the Constitution lacked a clear articulation of guaranteed rights, Madison proposed amendments that emphasized the rights of individuals rather than the rights of states, an ingenious move that led to cries that these amendments—now known as the "Bill of Rights"—were a mere diversion.
"I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights..."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787 [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_...
[3] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/demand-for-a-bill-of-rights.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/dema...
- raverbashing 6y agoAgree. As the fundamental law of a country, what makes sense to have there is: - Basic freedoms/rights - The government limits/boundaries (legislative and in regards to citizens) - How the government should work (on a very high level) The rest is better to have as laws/treaties. (Though to be fair sometimes it would be helpful to be more specific, still laws always move much slower than the times and technological changes might be difficult to consider using a past lens) The US constitution is to be fair one of the most concise ones. As you correctly point out, prohibition is something that shouldn't have been even there