4 ms·
Contrary to much of modern political US discourse the founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to be an immortal document treated as sacrosanct and
by lovich 4y ago
Contrary to much of modern political US discourse the founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to be an immortal document treated as sacrosanct and inviolable.
Thomas Jefferson[1] wanted the Constitution to be rewritten every 19 years as he did not believe future generations should be constrained by the limited understanding of the past. Given that past history, the government and it’s various bodies didn’t have a problem with banning weapons more powerful than the founders could have imagined from being in the hands of every civilian.
What is probably confusing you is there is a long simmering but recently rapidly growing religion in the US[2] that does believe that the Constitution is sacred and cannot be altered, and have gained enough political and social power to treat it as such. If I recall correctly the United States is currently in the longest stretch between Constitutional amendments in its history, as a result of this political/religious movement
[1] one of the more famous founding fathers and a major contributor to the writing of the Constitution
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion for the simmering portion and Q as the rapidly growing portion
- Throwawayaerlei 4y agoYou're ignoring the agreement made between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists, the latter led by none other hand Patrick Henry. The Bill of Rights was their price for accepting the Constitution, and nullifications of the former renders the whole compact null and void. Given that a case can be made for even the Third Amendment, no quartering of soldiers in people's dwellings being abrogated by the surveillance state.... And is sure sounds like you think religion is a four letter word....
- lovich 4y agoI do not understand the point you are trying to make other than the last sentence. If you think pointing to a religions beliefs is treating it like a four letter word I think that has more to do with your feelings about them after their beliefs are put out into the open instead of hidden or eluded to. What did you mean by “the nullifications of the former renders the whole compact null and void”? The Constitution is still valid or the Bill of Rights would have no affect, and it still doesn’t change some of the founders belief that the Constitution should not be permanent
- Throwawayaerlei 4y agoThe point is the Anti-Federalists said "No Bill of Rights, we won't observe the Constitution." Starting with New York I think this was made an explicit contingent condition of their ratification of the Constitution. Thus a compact, or covenant if you prefer. Thus the Bill of Rights are special in a way no other Amendments are and cannot be abrogated without breaking the covenant that allowed the Constitution to become a thing in the first place.
- lovich 4y agoI don’t know that I’ve ever heard this legal argument. Is there some paper on it? I can see how they are culturally and temporaly special in that the people at the time would not have joined without them but as far as I know they have less legal weight than any following amendment as they can change the text of any portion of the Constitution including the 10 amendments of the bill of rights
- sgt101 4y agoon [2] the Spartans had something very similar, and we all know how that ended (hint : not great for Sparta)