5 ms·
My counter to that is that the common act of holding the framers (and constitution) in reverence, which you did in the comment upthread, stultifies the ability
by smallerfish 5y ago
My counter to that is that the common act of holding the framers (and constitution) in reverence, which you did in the comment upthread, stultifies the ability of the country to react to changing mores and needs. There's a lot of absurdity in US law and politics that simply doesn't exist in countries with more modern and/or fluid constitutions.
Suppose that the US were to create a constitution today, based on today's needs and the anticipated needs of the next 50 years. How different do you think it would look from what was written in the 18th century? (Put aside the impossibility of doing this in today's political climate, as that's not the point of the question.)
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoI've gone back and forth on this. On one hand, the reverence is stifling and often mis-used. But it's also stabilizing. The fact that we've forgotten the balanced nature of our republic, and that the easiest way to remind us of that fact--which still holds merit today--is by appealing to the authority of the Founding Fathers, would be my Exhibit A to this argument.
- piva00 5y agoHow is that stabilising though? It starts to sound demi-religious. You shall not disobey the word of a larger power/figure. And then society starts to rift over time, through the interpretation by different sects about what the words meant. Over centuries you get a pretty twisted view of the original values, interpreted by a few different sects, and an ever growing wedge between those interpretations that gets harder and harder to reconcile. Just like most major religions.