4 ms·
Yes, because it leaves constitutional meaning up, not up to the people, but up to the whims of the supreme court. The easiest way to amend the constitution is
by joshuamorton 4y ago
Yes, because it leaves constitutional meaning up, not up to the people, but up to the whims of the supreme court.
The easiest way to amend the constitution is to hold or pack the supreme court. That is dysfunctional. An easier to amend constitution, that better reflected the people's will, would likely reduce political polarization, as it would be possible to actually pass national laws that have 60 or 70% support.
- nathanaldensr 4y agoThe Constitution does not represent the People's will; it represents the States' will. Amendments are not passed by popular vote. The Constitution is not a human rights document; it is a document created specifically to allow the States to agree on certain baseline rights and expectations.
- joshuamorton 4y agoYes, this is a bug, not a feature. A government that privileges certain arbitrary subdivisions over the citizenry is not great, and there's a reason that while many parts of the US constitution have been copied, that one hasn't.
- jakeogh 4y agoBoundaries, states in this case, but it's a general principal, are exactly what give the people within them self-determination.
- joshuamorton 4y agoOnly if those boundaries are individually self-governing! And they are not, since California and New York cannot outlaw handguns due to the influence of Wyoming and Idaho. And as soon as you say "well the voters in Wyoming and Idaho deserve...", you've dropped any pretense of the internal boundaries mattering, because we're now just talking about federal representation, where those citizens have disproportionately large representation.
- jakeogh 4y agoThey cant outlaw guns (lets not pretend) because humans have the inalienable right to -defend- themselves. And that includes against a tyrannical government. The United States would not exist otherwise[1]. [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... You cant outlaw lathes and mills. Now guns are now printable. That train has left. DRM lost.
- joshuamorton 4y agoGiven the way you're intentionally missing the point, I think it's clear my argument hit the mark. And jutt to further clarify, it's completely possible to ban things that someone can manufacture. I'm not sure what makes you think otherwise.
- _-david-_ 4y agoCalifornia and New York cannot ban hand guns because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Prior to this concept the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The States were free to ban guns if they wanted.
- joshuamorton 4y agoCorrect, a (functional) amendment to the constitution made by the supreme court and unable to be overturned except by that body, due to the inability to amend our constitution. This is decidedly not an argument against anything I've said.
- _-david-_ 4y agoI wasn't making an argument against the point you were trying to convey, but the argument you were using. It is not Wyoming and Idaho's fault, but an erroneous understanding of the 14th amendment that caused California to lose the right to ban guns. If the incorporation of the bill of Rights never happened California could ban not just handguns but every gun they wanted. I agree that Wyoming, Idaho and like minded states are stopping an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment. The easier way to get rid of guns in California is to push for no incorporation of the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court could do it if they wanted. You literally just need to convince 5 people.