3 ms·
In the US, we used to amend constitutions fairly regularly (at the Federal, State levels, but I’m most familiar with Federal and New York), especially through W
by gen220 4y ago
In the US, we used to amend constitutions fairly regularly (at the Federal, State levels, but I’m most familiar with Federal and New York), especially through WWII.
With a few exceptions (the prohibition is the biggest one that springs to mind), the trend line has generally been progressive.
We stopped making meaningful changes around the 1960s, read into that what we may. Regardless, our governmental institutions have proven to be fundamentally unmalleable (brittle?) in the last 60 years, which is a huge break from the norm.
The only other period comparable to this was the three generations leading into the American Civil War, which went 60 years without a federal amendment. But that period saw tons of “progress” at the state level, whereas this period has none.
I don’t have any conclusions, just food for thought.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoThe 11th and 16th amendments are ones that I argue shouldn't exist. They were ratified in reaction to Supreme court cases that respectively denied state immunity and federal powers.
- mynameishere 4y agoIt was progressives who outlawed booze. Don't retcon that word to mean "whatever I approve of today."
- gen220 4y agoI think we’re using different definitions of “progressive”. I’m using the dictionary definition “favoring liberal ideas”. I think you’re referring to big-P “Progressive”? Regardless of whether the temperance movement identified itself as “progressive” or which political party germinated it, prohibition is not a liberal idea: restricting the liberty to consume alcohol is not an expansion of freedom. The policy was bundled into the nominally “Progressive” platform of the 20th Century, but that doesn’t make it a progressive policy. North Korea and the Congo are nominally Democratic Republics, but their claiming the name doesn’t change the definition of democracy or republic.