6 ms·

Processes were included to amend the constitution for this exact reason! Of course the framers knew that it was a flawed document.

muglug 4y ago
[flagged]
- koolba 4y ago
  Yes it s a great system because foundational change requires a super majority of consensus across multiple political lines. Not just a mob showing up with pitch forks demanding the flavor of the week.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    That only works if people don't unreasonably deify the system. You have to admit the constitution is deeply flawed in order to be willing to modify it, and, well, if popular opinion is that it is deeply flawed, you won't amend it, you'll just have judges rule without interpreting it strictly. Politically speaking, it's a terribly flawed document, because it can't change it without a civil war or functionally one party rule, and its written in imprecise language that opens it up to more judicial interpretation than is necessary or constructive.
    - bwaldrep 4y ago
      It's a bit hyperbolic to say a civil war or one party rule is required. We've successfully amended it 27 times, 6 of those after 1950. Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly," which would help garner popular support for future amendments.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        I mean, of those 6, one (the 22nd) was passed as a response to the functionally one-party rule by FDR and new-deal dems in the 30s and 40s. Two (the 24th and 26th) were voting rights amendments that were functionally extensions of the 15th amendment, you know...one of the post-civil war amendments. And one (the 25th) was passed after the president was assassinated. One (the 27th) is a very popular idea with bipartisan support, and it still took 200 years to ratify. I'd also reiterate that social factors have changed, we're currently in the longest break between amendments being passed since reconstruction. None have been passed in my lifetime, and the same group that says we should interpret the constitution extremely strictly is also the one that says that it's perfect as is and we should respect it and the founders great insights. That's not a recipe for changing it. > Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly," That's, just, like, your opinion, man. By which I mean that originalism isn't the only school of thought in regards to the constitution. By the time you've succeeded in convincing people that it is okay to change the constitution, you'll have also convinced them that interpreting it less strictly. Saying it's a living document but not a living constitution is an impossibly hard needle to thread. And that's doubly true when "should the document be changed" itself becomes a political question, which it has. Something like 20-30% of the US will vote for people on a platform of "I will oppose any constitutional amendment". That's enough to block ratification!
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > We've successfully amended it 27 times 18 times (Articles 3-12 of the proposed Bill of Rights were ratified simultaneously and became Amendments 1-10; article 2 took 201 more years, and Article 1, though it was once one state away from ratification, has still not been ratified and is 27 states short.)
  - jyounker 4y ago
    Rule by the minority. You think that's fair?
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      Do you really want $other_party to be able to change the constitution whenever they happen to get a supermajority?
      - jjitz 4y ago
        If they get a 2/3 supermajority? yes...
    - koolba 4y ago
      > Rule by the minority. You think that's fair? It's not rule by the minority. It's that the majority needs to get wider agreement on their changes if they are to be implemented. The minority cannot force anything to happen. They can only prevent sweeping changes from passing with the slimmest of margins. For every liberal complaining about the filibuster or Senate debate rules, would you have been fine with total Republican control of all levels of Federal government from 2016-2018? They had a wider majority in both the House and the Senate than the Democrats do right now. Slowing the pace of massive change is a good thing. It gives time for ideas to be fleshed out. It gives time for ideas to be experimented with at a smaller scale. It gives time for people to see the results or consequences of actions.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > It's not rule by the minority Yes the systematic unequal representation in (in descending order of inherent distortion, though abuse of state-level control of apportionment in the latter case means it's not always descending order of actual distortion) the Senate, Electoral College, and House all favor essentially the same geopgraphy and thus the same political faction so long as ideology isn't geographically homogeneous. This favors stable minority rule.
- spa3thyb 4y ago
  Setting Congress aside, you'd then need thirty-eight states to ratify the amendment!

muglug 4y ago

[flagged]

koolba 4y ago
Yes it s a great system because foundational change requires a super majority of consensus across multiple political lines. Not just a mob showing up with pitch forks demanding the flavor of the week.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  That only works if people don't unreasonably deify the system. You have to admit the constitution is deeply flawed in order to be willing to modify it, and, well, if popular opinion is that it is deeply flawed, you won't amend it, you'll just have judges rule without interpreting it strictly. Politically speaking, it's a terribly flawed document, because it can't change it without a civil war or functionally one party rule, and its written in imprecise language that opens it up to more judicial interpretation than is necessary or constructive.
  - bwaldrep 4y ago
    It's a bit hyperbolic to say a civil war or one party rule is required. We've successfully amended it 27 times, 6 of those after 1950. Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly," which would help garner popular support for future amendments.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      I mean, of those 6, one (the 22nd) was passed as a response to the functionally one-party rule by FDR and new-deal dems in the 30s and 40s. Two (the 24th and 26th) were voting rights amendments that were functionally extensions of the 15th amendment, you know...one of the post-civil war amendments. And one (the 25th) was passed after the president was assassinated. One (the 27th) is a very popular idea with bipartisan support, and it still took 200 years to ratify. I'd also reiterate that social factors have changed, we're currently in the longest break between amendments being passed since reconstruction. None have been passed in my lifetime, and the same group that says we should interpret the constitution extremely strictly is also the one that says that it's perfect as is and we should respect it and the founders great insights. That's not a recipe for changing it. > Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly," That's, just, like, your opinion, man. By which I mean that originalism isn't the only school of thought in regards to the constitution. By the time you've succeeded in convincing people that it is okay to change the constitution, you'll have also convinced them that interpreting it less strictly. Saying it's a living document but not a living constitution is an impossibly hard needle to thread. And that's doubly true when "should the document be changed" itself becomes a political question, which it has. Something like 20-30% of the US will vote for people on a platform of "I will oppose any constitutional amendment". That's enough to block ratification!
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > We've successfully amended it 27 times 18 times (Articles 3-12 of the proposed Bill of Rights were ratified simultaneously and became Amendments 1-10; article 2 took 201 more years, and Article 1, though it was once one state away from ratification, has still not been ratified and is 27 states short.)
- jyounker 4y ago
  Rule by the minority. You think that's fair?
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    Do you really want $other_party to be able to change the constitution whenever they happen to get a supermajority?
    - jjitz 4y ago
      If they get a 2/3 supermajority? yes...
  - koolba 4y ago
    > Rule by the minority. You think that's fair? It's not rule by the minority. It's that the majority needs to get wider agreement on their changes if they are to be implemented. The minority cannot force anything to happen. They can only prevent sweeping changes from passing with the slimmest of margins. For every liberal complaining about the filibuster or Senate debate rules, would you have been fine with total Republican control of all levels of Federal government from 2016-2018? They had a wider majority in both the House and the Senate than the Democrats do right now. Slowing the pace of massive change is a good thing. It gives time for ideas to be fleshed out. It gives time for ideas to be experimented with at a smaller scale. It gives time for people to see the results or consequences of actions.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > It's not rule by the minority Yes the systematic unequal representation in (in descending order of inherent distortion, though abuse of state-level control of apportionment in the latter case means it's not always descending order of actual distortion) the Senate, Electoral College, and House all favor essentially the same geopgraphy and thus the same political faction so long as ideology isn't geographically homogeneous. This favors stable minority rule.
spa3thyb 4y ago
Setting Congress aside, you'd then need thirty-eight states to ratify the amendment!