16 ms·

Author complains these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation. That polarisation is the very reason why those amendments shouldn't pass.

by cm2187 4y ago

Author complains these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation. That polarisation is the very reason why those amendments shouldn't pass. You can only change the constitution if there is a consensus, by design. If you want to make a change that half the country is dead against, all the systems of balance of power will work against it (two chambers - one by headcount the other by states, filibuster, presidential veto, high threshold of consensus for changing the constitution), as it should. And the constitution should be the hardest of all paths, since it is senior to all others.

m-p-3 4y ago
So one way or another, the population will reach its breaking point, and the Constitution will change.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  If a population not significantly a majority of the country “reaches a breaking point”, that sounds like it would not go well.
  - rybosome 4y ago
    It won’t. This is going to be a decade of strife and instability.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > This is going to be a decade of strife and instability. “decade” is quite optimistic.
- UberFly 4y ago
  No, more like one of the broken parts will create their own Constitution.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    The US tried that already in 1861, it didn't go well. Also you're advocating for the idea that Democracy is a bad idea here.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      “Democracy” isn’t a one-dimensional issue. How you make decisions (majority vote) is one dimension. But who makes the decision—what group does the voting and is bound by the results of voting—is another dimension. Many countries balance these issues by having different levels of voting. Distinct communities wishing to govern themselves is a nearly universal phenomenon. My country exists because we didn’t want to be in a body politic with Pakistanis. It was our right to decide we should have our own government where we, and not they, voted on the laws that governed us. Dismissively comparing all such impulses to the Civil War is intellectually lazy. Self determination is a widely recognized political right. If folks in Alabama don’t want folks in California to have a say in their affairs, they have that right. That must be balanced against other practicalities of course. But letting different groups govern themselves is conceptually part of “democracy” just as much as “one person one vote.”
      - mistermann 4y ago
        If the secret of the dimensionality of reality was ever to seep out into the broad memeplex (particularly if the idea caught on with young people), I have a feeling our zoo keepers would have a bit of trouble on their hands.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Just because it was tried and "failed" once before doesn't mean that people don't still believe that it can be tried and made to work the next time. The concept of a split US is not unattractive to a much larger number of people than you might be willing to give credit. There's also the people that will support a movement not because they fully support it, but mainly just because it's screwing the "system" and watching the chaos. Back in the mid-90s, I was a video journalist covering the Republic of Texas[0] movement to secede (or in their words to recognize the illegality of Texas being annexed into the Union). It was very interesting how it was successfully progressing through the court system, but then went to crazy town with all of the liens, attempting to print their own money, and the kidnappings. However, there were the typical people denouncing their US citizenship and signing up to join to the Republic of Texas. The thing that surprised me was the governments of other countries signed up in recognition of the RoT as a legit government. I get that individual peoples wanting to see the world burn, but seeing governments sign up for it was what got me. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Republic_of_Texas_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Repu...
- kepler1 4y ago
  On what issues are we going to reach a breaking point that calls for Constitutional change?
  - HaZeust 4y ago
    I firmly believe it'll be a catalyst that reminds "The People" that they were MEANT to be the fourth check and balance, and that the check and balance system was NOT abstracted for just political institutions to provide leverage against each other's tension. The founder of the idea of "checks and balances" themselves (Montesquieu, Secondat) said it, the Founding Fathers who were influenced by the two (Madison) wanted to charter it (Federalist n. 10), and Hobbes argued for it in Leviathan. The writing has been on the wall for CENTURIES to include The People as its own entity within the ontological power-struggle of American politics - we were just led to forget our own history.
    - paganel 4y ago
      As a big fan of Jean-Jacques myself I also dig the volonté générale/will of the People, the trouble is that it's quite difficult to say what that "will" really is, first, and second, and just as important, who the People actually is. To be honest I don't think that in these past ~250 years we've made that big of a progress in answering those two fundamental questions. I mean, the US Constitution starts with the very rousseau-ist "We the People of the United States", but a major part of the population living in said United States wasn't considered (fully) part of said People until the mid-19th century, some say that even now that process is an ongoing project.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    The biggest issue in my mind is the potential for the election deniers to gain real power. If elections no longer work as intended, I don’t think anybody can predict what the outcome will be.
- stale2002 4y ago
  If there is a strong enough popular support for taking more extreme actions, then there should be strong enough support to change the constitution the normal way. For people who want the constitution changed, thats the dilemma they have to deal with. If they don't have enough support to do it the regular way, then maybe the more silly and extreme solutions aren't justified either.
  - hardtke 4y ago
    The primary flaw in the constitution is that smaller states have disproportionate power (Senate and Electoral College) and will never give up or dilute this power. Even worse, equal representation for each state in the Senate is literally the only part of the constitution that cannot be amended. So even with overwhelming popular support there is an absolute barrier to reform.
    - vkou 4y ago
      On the bright side, senatorial races can't be gerrymandered. On the less bright side, voter suppression and disenfranchisement can fix them a senate race as well as any other.
      - guelo 4y ago
        Senatorial races were gerrymandered in the 19th century when they were converting territories into states. We are stuck with the results of those political battles forever.
    - friend_and_foe 4y ago
      The problem with the electoral college is not one with the constitution. The house of representatives could easily reapportion seats and expand it's size to be more in line with the populations of the states, and these readjust the electoral votes to be closer to the popular vote. But they don't. Why? Perhaps they give up more as individuals than they gain in doing so?
    - sokoloff 4y ago
anonymousiam 4y ago
Exactly! In addition, the 10th amendment should prevent, but has not stopped Congress from passing most of the laws it has passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. That the government routinely ignores the Constitution isn't a conspiracy, just a sad fact. How many wars have we been in over the last 70 years? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Just to name a very few. Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. How many times has the Congress voted to go to war? Is this just a conspiracy, or another example of our government's disregard for the document that purportedly grants them their legitimate legal authority? Congress actually voted against going to war against Libya in 2011, but Obama ignored them and destroyed Libya anyway. Conspiracy or disregard for the highest law in the land? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
      Legally speaking, what is a war? Can an event look like a war, but is not a war? What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Is every event involving military action a war?
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        Congratulations, you just summed up about 30% of Command and Staff College. /s Professionally, we discuss a continuum of armed conflict, ranging from competition (at the "infrared" end of the spectrum) through limited contingency operations, small wars, hybrid threats, etc. to total war. The Constitution has built into it certain assumptions about the world. Many of them either hold true or can be legally held true (e.g., there are inherent rights with inherent contours, such as for speech or keeping and bearing arms, that can be determined with historical analysis). Many cannot hold, and become vestigial and almost meaningless (e.g., a $20 threshold for jury trials in civil cases). Lastly, many cannot hold... and so the applicability of the provisions they implicate become open questions. It simply isn't the case that only nation-states can engage in armed conflict, or that they always make formal declarations of it (though I'd argue the AUMFs qualify for Constitutional purposes), or that all armed conflict will be at the level of total war. The substance of the power to declare war is to ensure the President cannot act unilaterally to call up Reservists or engage in conflict; Congress governs. I think that substance continues to be met, given the weave of the statutory scheme (Title 10, Subtitle E; contingency operation appropriations by Congress; AUMFs; etc.).
hedora 4y ago
Population shifts mean an ever-shrinking minority of the population can block changes to the constitution. It’s barely even double digits at this point. Constitutional amendments were supposed to be easier than right to rebellion. That’s not really the case any more. At the same time, the supreme court is just ignoring the law, over the objections of 66-75% of the population (depending on the ruling). These are dark times for US democracy. There’s no evidence things are working as intended.
- kepler1 4y ago
  - voltaireodactyl 4y ago
    In my opinion the unacceptable, repetitive, fundamentalist-led attacks on the very institution of voting itself would take far more precedence than the social issues you listed, although I know social media leans hard on them. If you truly feel those are the most pressing issues in your mind/spheres, I would urge you to remember that social media is largely an echo chamber designed to distract from the actual issues, like the aforementioned sustained assault on the very basis of American society.
    - kepler1 4y ago
      Please say what about voting has been fundamentally attacked at its core that rises to the level of amending the Constitution? That voters are required to (gasp) verify their identification, once every 4 years, if certain conditions aren't met? That drop boxes for ballots were reduced in number? Gerrymandering? Just look at some of the district designs in New York. I might remind you that all the things that are criticized in Republican states for suppressing the vote, exist as rules in certain Democratic states as well. It's easy, I might point out to you as well, to live in an echo chamber where issues get inflated in perceived importance, only because they hurt your side. Yet those same issues happening where it doesn't hurt the side, somehow fall from being a problem. That's no way to come to what should be an amendment to our basic document.
psudmant 4y ago
The author does not "complain these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation [sic]" - she points out that even prior to polarization most amendments couldnt be passed. There are many other important and nuanced points in the article as well, it's neither pro- nor anti- amendment.
- tdehnel 4y ago
  https://sapling.ai/usage/polarization-vs-polarisation https://sapling.ai/usage/polarization-vs-polarisation
lettergram 4y ago
IMO "amendments" are made and also "ignored" via an unofficial process. For example, I can read the second amendment -- > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is clear the national firearms act is outright unconstitutional by any sane reading, yet it was deemed "okay" by SCOTUS and passed by congress. The amendment was ignored for nearly 80 years and finally opinion seems to be shifting. In a similar vein, the supreme court previously created a problematic "roe v wade" ruling. Regardless where you stand on the issue, SCOTUS effectively legislated that decision into existence. There was never any support in the constitution for their claims (the cut-off date in particular) or any laws passed (hence it was overturned and returned to the states). It's called "legislating from the bench". In other words, our constitution is interpreted by a court which can just decide it means something that it doesn't. It seems we can't repeal the amendments, but we sure can ignore them. And we can't create new amendments, but we sure can just implement them (Roe v Wade). Personally, I'd like to see the constitution fully implemented to the furthest possible extent. We may disagree on issues, but to the point, we can amend them. A full implementation would also create more sovereign states which enable a diversity of ideas and plethora of ways to live.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  The Supreme Court didn’t nullify the first clause of the second amendment until 2012. The thought that the right to bear arms was completely unrestricted didn’t exist for the first 200 years of the USA’s existence (including when the people who wrote it were still alive). That the Supreme Court was able to change the meaning of the amendment over time is a clear indication that literal interpretations of it really don’t exist.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    ^ clearly making my point that cultural opinions dictate more than amendments (particularly ones held by SCOTUS). Just to be clear, you're incorrect. The bill of rights was extremely clear, the intent was that every citizen should be armed. Recall at the time, the states had to call on citizens to defend their towns, states and country regularly. They didn't have money and needed the citizens to have their own weapons. For both personal and collective defense. > The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. - Thomas Jefferson That said, there has always been a push from various political groups (all the way back to John Adams) who pushed to regulate arms in one-way-or-another. The point is, the reading itself is clear. If you read the various diaries, letters, speeches and publications at the time it paints a picture much like today. There are those who want a disarmed population fearing rebellion and those who demand an armed population. The group that won out on the amendment were clear: "There shall be no law regulating arms and you should be proficient in their use"
pasquinelli 4y ago
> If you want to make a change that half the country is dead against, all the systems of balance of power will work against it (two chambers - one by headcount the other by states, filibuster, presidential veto, high threshold of consensus for changing the constitution), as it should. which is why prohabition never happened.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. At the time (and still to this day) alcohol and drugs made and destroyed empires. The Dutch Empire was based on Gin. The British Empire on Opium and Rhum. Russia on Vodka. France had Bourbon.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime I have never seen this claim made before and would like some evidence for it.
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. Is that a bit like "the sun stopped coming up, until the sun came up the next day" ?
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      Or that they saw the immediate effect but the consequences after that. Hindsight is 20/20.
  - 4y ago
Nursie 4y ago
Part of the problem in the last half century does appear to be that consensus is itself no longer desirable or possible - the two-party system in the US appears to have an element of adversarial behaviour which is purely for the sake of being against the other guy. So it's not so much that half the country is dead against particular measures because of their merits or values, but they will be set against change it simply because the other side wants it.
- naasking 4y ago
  > the two-party system in the US appears to have an element of adversarial behaviour which is purely for the sake of being against the other guy. Because it serves to maintain a delicate balance: donors fill the coffers of both parties and offer cushy jobs after their term in office, and in return politicians don't pass any legislation that can meaningfully threaten the bottom line of those donors, even though that kind of legislation would actually help the most people and be quite popular. This is why large corporations donate almost equally to both parties, from defense contractors to pharma. Instead of those meaningful changes which would unite the country, politicians set up culture war issues to set half the country against the other half, because culture war issues are semantic language games where nobody wins and everybody loses. It's bikeshedding writ large.
roflyear 4y ago
You confuse consensus with "if we agree with the other guys we'll lose votes" - they aren't the same thing.
LatteLazy 4y ago
You say "should" and I think you're right that that is how the system is interpreted to work and has been for a while. But don't mistake that for a design choice by genius founding fathers OR for a good aspect or a way of achieving good government. Relying on consensus to get things done AND designing a system to prevent consensus (party system, FPTP etc) is really just a recipe for deadlocked government. The result is the main failing of the US system: things are dictated by the craziest holdout. I don't think this is a design choice (thinking so would be pretty damning for the founding fathers...). I don't think it serves the US well. I think it is only how the system "should" work in the sense that it is the natural failure mode of the system as written. If a bad, rushed coder fails to put divide by zero protection in, the program "should" crash when someone puts a 0 in. That doesn't mean that isn't a bug to fix though...

by cm2187 4y ago

m-p-3 4y ago

So one way or another, the population will reach its breaking point, and the Constitution will change.

epicureanideal 4y ago
If a population not significantly a majority of the country “reaches a breaking point”, that sounds like it would not go well.
- rybosome 4y ago
  It won’t. This is going to be a decade of strife and instability.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > This is going to be a decade of strife and instability. “decade” is quite optimistic.
UberFly 4y ago
No, more like one of the broken parts will create their own Constitution.
- mlindner 4y ago
  The US tried that already in 1861, it didn't go well. Also you're advocating for the idea that Democracy is a bad idea here.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    “Democracy” isn’t a one-dimensional issue. How you make decisions (majority vote) is one dimension. But who makes the decision—what group does the voting and is bound by the results of voting—is another dimension. Many countries balance these issues by having different levels of voting. Distinct communities wishing to govern themselves is a nearly universal phenomenon. My country exists because we didn’t want to be in a body politic with Pakistanis. It was our right to decide we should have our own government where we, and not they, voted on the laws that governed us. Dismissively comparing all such impulses to the Civil War is intellectually lazy. Self determination is a widely recognized political right. If folks in Alabama don’t want folks in California to have a say in their affairs, they have that right. That must be balanced against other practicalities of course. But letting different groups govern themselves is conceptually part of “democracy” just as much as “one person one vote.”
    - mistermann 4y ago
      If the secret of the dimensionality of reality was ever to seep out into the broad memeplex (particularly if the idea caught on with young people), I have a feeling our zoo keepers would have a bit of trouble on their hands.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Just because it was tried and "failed" once before doesn't mean that people don't still believe that it can be tried and made to work the next time. The concept of a split US is not unattractive to a much larger number of people than you might be willing to give credit. There's also the people that will support a movement not because they fully support it, but mainly just because it's screwing the "system" and watching the chaos. Back in the mid-90s, I was a video journalist covering the Republic of Texas[0] movement to secede (or in their words to recognize the illegality of Texas being annexed into the Union). It was very interesting how it was successfully progressing through the court system, but then went to crazy town with all of the liens, attempting to print their own money, and the kidnappings. However, there were the typical people denouncing their US citizenship and signing up to join to the Republic of Texas. The thing that surprised me was the governments of other countries signed up in recognition of the RoT as a legit government. I get that individual peoples wanting to see the world burn, but seeing governments sign up for it was what got me. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Republic_of_Texas_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements#Repu...
kepler1 4y ago
On what issues are we going to reach a breaking point that calls for Constitutional change?
- HaZeust 4y ago
  I firmly believe it'll be a catalyst that reminds "The People" that they were MEANT to be the fourth check and balance, and that the check and balance system was NOT abstracted for just political institutions to provide leverage against each other's tension. The founder of the idea of "checks and balances" themselves (Montesquieu, Secondat) said it, the Founding Fathers who were influenced by the two (Madison) wanted to charter it (Federalist n. 10), and Hobbes argued for it in Leviathan. The writing has been on the wall for CENTURIES to include The People as its own entity within the ontological power-struggle of American politics - we were just led to forget our own history.
  - paganel 4y ago
    As a big fan of Jean-Jacques myself I also dig the volonté générale/will of the People, the trouble is that it's quite difficult to say what that "will" really is, first, and second, and just as important, who the People actually is. To be honest I don't think that in these past ~250 years we've made that big of a progress in answering those two fundamental questions. I mean, the US Constitution starts with the very rousseau-ist "We the People of the United States", but a major part of the population living in said United States wasn't considered (fully) part of said People until the mid-19th century, some say that even now that process is an ongoing project.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  The biggest issue in my mind is the potential for the election deniers to gain real power. If elections no longer work as intended, I don’t think anybody can predict what the outcome will be.
stale2002 4y ago
If there is a strong enough popular support for taking more extreme actions, then there should be strong enough support to change the constitution the normal way. For people who want the constitution changed, thats the dilemma they have to deal with. If they don't have enough support to do it the regular way, then maybe the more silly and extreme solutions aren't justified either.
- hardtke 4y ago
  The primary flaw in the constitution is that smaller states have disproportionate power (Senate and Electoral College) and will never give up or dilute this power. Even worse, equal representation for each state in the Senate is literally the only part of the constitution that cannot be amended. So even with overwhelming popular support there is an absolute barrier to reform.
  - vkou 4y ago
    On the bright side, senatorial races can't be gerrymandered. On the less bright side, voter suppression and disenfranchisement can fix them a senate race as well as any other.
    - guelo 4y ago
      Senatorial races were gerrymandered in the 19th century when they were converting territories into states. We are stuck with the results of those political battles forever.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    The problem with the electoral college is not one with the constitution. The house of representatives could easily reapportion seats and expand it's size to be more in line with the populations of the states, and these readjust the electoral votes to be closer to the popular vote. But they don't. Why? Perhaps they give up more as individuals than they gain in doing so?
  - sokoloff 4y ago

anonymousiam 4y ago

Exactly! In addition, the 10th amendment should prevent, but has not stopped Congress from passing most of the laws it has passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

sidewndr46 4y ago
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. That the government routinely ignores the Constitution isn't a conspiracy, just a sad fact. How many wars have we been in over the last 70 years? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Just to name a very few. Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. How many times has the Congress voted to go to war? Is this just a conspiracy, or another example of our government's disregard for the document that purportedly grants them their legitimate legal authority? Congress actually voted against going to war against Libya in 2011, but Obama ignored them and destroyed Libya anyway. Conspiracy or disregard for the highest law in the land? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonnybgood 4y ago
    Legally speaking, what is a war? Can an event look like a war, but is not a war? What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Is every event involving military action a war?
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      Congratulations, you just summed up about 30% of Command and Staff College. /s Professionally, we discuss a continuum of armed conflict, ranging from competition (at the "infrared" end of the spectrum) through limited contingency operations, small wars, hybrid threats, etc. to total war. The Constitution has built into it certain assumptions about the world. Many of them either hold true or can be legally held true (e.g., there are inherent rights with inherent contours, such as for speech or keeping and bearing arms, that can be determined with historical analysis). Many cannot hold, and become vestigial and almost meaningless (e.g., a $20 threshold for jury trials in civil cases). Lastly, many cannot hold... and so the applicability of the provisions they implicate become open questions. It simply isn't the case that only nation-states can engage in armed conflict, or that they always make formal declarations of it (though I'd argue the AUMFs qualify for Constitutional purposes), or that all armed conflict will be at the level of total war. The substance of the power to declare war is to ensure the President cannot act unilaterally to call up Reservists or engage in conflict; Congress governs. I think that substance continues to be met, given the weave of the statutory scheme (Title 10, Subtitle E; contingency operation appropriations by Congress; AUMFs; etc.).

hedora 4y ago

Population shifts mean an ever-shrinking minority of the population can block changes to the constitution. It’s barely even double digits at this point. Constitutional amendments were supposed to be easier than right to rebellion. That’s not really the case any more. At the same time, the supreme court is just ignoring the law, over the objections of 66-75% of the population (depending on the ruling). These are dark times for US democracy. There’s no evidence things are working as intended.

kepler1 4y ago
- voltaireodactyl 4y ago
  In my opinion the unacceptable, repetitive, fundamentalist-led attacks on the very institution of voting itself would take far more precedence than the social issues you listed, although I know social media leans hard on them. If you truly feel those are the most pressing issues in your mind/spheres, I would urge you to remember that social media is largely an echo chamber designed to distract from the actual issues, like the aforementioned sustained assault on the very basis of American society.
  - kepler1 4y ago
    Please say what about voting has been fundamentally attacked at its core that rises to the level of amending the Constitution? That voters are required to (gasp) verify their identification, once every 4 years, if certain conditions aren't met? That drop boxes for ballots were reduced in number? Gerrymandering? Just look at some of the district designs in New York. I might remind you that all the things that are criticized in Republican states for suppressing the vote, exist as rules in certain Democratic states as well. It's easy, I might point out to you as well, to live in an echo chamber where issues get inflated in perceived importance, only because they hurt your side. Yet those same issues happening where it doesn't hurt the side, somehow fall from being a problem. That's no way to come to what should be an amendment to our basic document.

psudmant 4y ago

The author does not "complain these amendments cannot be passed because of political polarisation [sic]" - she points out that even prior to polarization most amendments couldnt be passed. There are many other important and nuanced points in the article as well, it's neither pro- nor anti- amendment.

tdehnel 4y ago
https://sapling.ai/usage/polarization-vs-polarisation https://sapling.ai/usage/polarization-vs-polarisation

lettergram 4y ago

IMO "amendments" are made and also "ignored" via an unofficial process. For example, I can read the second amendment -- > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is clear the national firearms act is outright unconstitutional by any sane reading, yet it was deemed "okay" by SCOTUS and passed by congress. The amendment was ignored for nearly 80 years and finally opinion seems to be shifting. In a similar vein, the supreme court previously created a problematic "roe v wade" ruling. Regardless where you stand on the issue, SCOTUS effectively legislated that decision into existence. There was never any support in the constitution for their claims (the cut-off date in particular) or any laws passed (hence it was overturned and returned to the states). It's called "legislating from the bench". In other words, our constitution is interpreted by a court which can just decide it means something that it doesn't. It seems we can't repeal the amendments, but we sure can ignore them. And we can't create new amendments, but we sure can just implement them (Roe v Wade). Personally, I'd like to see the constitution fully implemented to the furthest possible extent. We may disagree on issues, but to the point, we can amend them. A full implementation would also create more sovereign states which enable a diversity of ideas and plethora of ways to live.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
The Supreme Court didn’t nullify the first clause of the second amendment until 2012. The thought that the right to bear arms was completely unrestricted didn’t exist for the first 200 years of the USA’s existence (including when the people who wrote it were still alive). That the Supreme Court was able to change the meaning of the amendment over time is a clear indication that literal interpretations of it really don’t exist.
- lettergram 4y ago
  ^ clearly making my point that cultural opinions dictate more than amendments (particularly ones held by SCOTUS). Just to be clear, you're incorrect. The bill of rights was extremely clear, the intent was that every citizen should be armed. Recall at the time, the states had to call on citizens to defend their towns, states and country regularly. They didn't have money and needed the citizens to have their own weapons. For both personal and collective defense. > The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. - Thomas Jefferson That said, there has always been a push from various political groups (all the way back to John Adams) who pushed to regulate arms in one-way-or-another. The point is, the reading itself is clear. If you read the various diaries, letters, speeches and publications at the time it paints a picture much like today. There are those who want a disarmed population fearing rebellion and those who demand an armed population. The group that won out on the amendment were clear: "There shall be no law regulating arms and you should be proficient in their use"

pasquinelli 4y ago

> If you want to make a change that half the country is dead against, all the systems of balance of power will work against it (two chambers - one by headcount the other by states, filibuster, presidential veto, high threshold of consensus for changing the constitution), as it should. which is why prohabition never happened.

TeeMassive 4y ago
Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. At the time (and still to this day) alcohol and drugs made and destroyed empires. The Dutch Empire was based on Gin. The British Empire on Opium and Rhum. Russia on Vodka. France had Bourbon.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime I have never seen this claim made before and would like some evidence for it.
  - TeeMassive 4y ago
    https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > Crime virtually disappeared after Prohibition was passed until the apparition of organized crime. Is that a bit like "the sun stopped coming up, until the sun came up the next day" ?
  - TeeMassive 4y ago
    Or that they saw the immediate effect but the consequences after that. Hindsight is 20/20.
- 4y ago

Nursie 4y ago

Part of the problem in the last half century does appear to be that consensus is itself no longer desirable or possible - the two-party system in the US appears to have an element of adversarial behaviour which is purely for the sake of being against the other guy. So it's not so much that half the country is dead against particular measures because of their merits or values, but they will be set against change it simply because the other side wants it.

naasking 4y ago
> the two-party system in the US appears to have an element of adversarial behaviour which is purely for the sake of being against the other guy. Because it serves to maintain a delicate balance: donors fill the coffers of both parties and offer cushy jobs after their term in office, and in return politicians don't pass any legislation that can meaningfully threaten the bottom line of those donors, even though that kind of legislation would actually help the most people and be quite popular. This is why large corporations donate almost equally to both parties, from defense contractors to pharma. Instead of those meaningful changes which would unite the country, politicians set up culture war issues to set half the country against the other half, because culture war issues are semantic language games where nobody wins and everybody loses. It's bikeshedding writ large.

roflyear 4y ago

You confuse consensus with "if we agree with the other guys we'll lose votes" - they aren't the same thing.

LatteLazy 4y ago

You say "should" and I think you're right that that is how the system is interpreted to work and has been for a while. But don't mistake that for a design choice by genius founding fathers OR for a good aspect or a way of achieving good government. Relying on consensus to get things done AND designing a system to prevent consensus (party system, FPTP etc) is really just a recipe for deadlocked government. The result is the main failing of the US system: things are dictated by the craziest holdout. I don't think this is a design choice (thinking so would be pretty damning for the founding fathers...). I don't think it serves the US well. I think it is only how the system "should" work in the sense that it is the natural failure mode of the system as written. If a bad, rushed coder fails to put divide by zero protection in, the program "should" crash when someone puts a 0 in. That doesn't mean that isn't a bug to fix though...