5 ms·

The absurdity in the constitution is getting to be almost biblical, where we have different generations of priests giving their interpretation and reinterpretat

The absurdity in the constitution is getting to be almost biblical, where we have different generations of priests giving their interpretation and reinterpretations of what the founding pantheon ordained. In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times, not an immutable ledger of all our misdeeds and misjudgements. I don't know what the ideal kind of government is, but when the weight of it can crush some and shield others depending on the will of a minority it's no longer a government for the people, by the people.

kiba 2y ago
The constitution is not readily amendable. So basically the only way of changing the constitution to fit present day need is to have judges do creative interpretation.
- clipsy 2y ago
  It's exactly as readily amendable as it ever was, and previous generations were demonstrably able to amend it.
  - metadat 2y ago
    The Constitution hasn't been amended since 1992, which was 32 years ago. Is this a good sign? That's more than 10% of the history of the nation, which comparatively is a lot of time to not incorporate new changes as society and norms evolve. It is fundamentally valid to question whether or not the constitution is still an effective vehicle for advocating for the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens.
    - codingdave 2y ago
      Multi-decade gaps between amendments are not uncommon in USA's history. 1804-1865 was a big gap, and the country was much younger then.
      - metadat 2y ago
        The rate of change was also a lot less 200 years ago. What is your position? Are you saying it's all good these days?
        talldayo 2y ago
        The last what, 5 amendments were all basic common-sense maintenance updates. The 22nd and 21st amendments were the last ones that were arguably significant. Do you have anything particular in mind that you think needs addressing? It feels like you're suggesting that liberal society should be making more amendments but I really don't know what America can agree to change right now.
        metadat 2y ago
        I completely agree with you, America agrees-on very little these days. It's unfortunate, because we kind of set the benchmark for Earth at present. It's a grand experiment at scale..
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        throwawa14223 2y ago
        Maybe if we can't agree we shouldn't be amending the social contract?
        metadat 2y ago
        Being tribal isn't beneficial at scale. Requiring universal agreement would halt all societal progress. Sometimes folks need a nudge to adjust.
        throwawa14223 2y ago
        > I don't know how to reply, other than just "Nope". Cool, no need to waste my time then.
    - smeej 2y ago
      Well, there are only 27 ratified amendments total, the first 10 of which were passed at once, so 17 in 248 years makes 32 a little more than twice the average amount of time, but they also tend to happen in clusters, and gaps between clusters have been longer than this before, so I don't think it's even all that anomalous.
    - naasking 2y ago
      > more than 10% of the history of the nation, which comparatively is a lot of time to not incorporate new changes as society and norms evolve. The constitution is not supposed to change quickly. It's supposed to act as a bulwark against government overreach driven by sudden populist mobs or public paranoia.
    - Brybry 2y ago
      The crazier thing is that the 1992 amendment (the 27th) was proposed by Congress in 1789 but was still "live" to be ratified by the States in the 1980s/1990s. [1] If wikipedia is correct then Congress hasn't passed an amendment proposal in 46 years. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Revival_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Ri...
      - adolph 2y ago
        Epic! It might well have been a C paper in quality but Watson aced the follow-through. [the] amendment was largely forgotten until Gregory Watson, an undergraduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper on the subject in 1982 for a political science course. In the paper, Watson argued that the amendment was still "live" and could be ratified. Watson received a "C" grade for his paper from one of the course's teaching assistants. Watson appealed the grade to the course instructor, Sharon Waite, who declined to overrule the teaching assistant. Waite has said, "I kind of glanced at it, but I didn't see anything that was particularly outstanding about it and I thought the C was probably fine".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
philips 2y ago
It seems as if the two party system cemented everything until an absolute disaster is at hand. I have hopes that RCV and National Popular Vote can at least add some dynamism to the system. But, besides that, I am at a loss for solutions. Although I found this recent discussion with Jon Stewart left some more breadcrumbs in my mind to follow. https://youtu.be/n_EofYXRBnM?si=6GL_bT6siM9A7IHn https://youtu.be/n_EofYXRBnM?si=6GL_bT6siM9A7IHn
- richrichie 2y ago
  I think being a good citizen is where it starts. It used to be the case - no matter who won, people rallied behind the elected for the good of the country. Things have become very different since 2016.
  - philips 2y ago
    If you are saying rallying behind a president no matter what is part of being a good citizen then I disagree wholeheartedly. Since I began voting I have experienced two votes, including 2016, where the President lost the popular vote. Very very difficult to rally behind someone who wins through a bad quirk of our democracy. It is a sad history[1] and the only fix I know of is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
  - vharuck 2y ago
    I honestly don't remember this ever being the case. There were always large groups of people who hated the president and blamed most of society's woes on him and his entire party.
    - richrichie 2y ago
      People rallied behind Bush Jr even though he was a rank idiot and was surrounded by crazy neocons (most of who now are part of Democratic party). In many ways he was worse than Trump.
labster 2y ago
Not sure what you mean by almost biblical, it’s all the way there. There are the originalists, who believe in interpreting the Constitution as originally spoken by the prophets, er, founding fathers. Basically sharia constitutional law. The other side believes in the Logos, the living word of the Constitution, which changes its meaning as our society evolves to a more perfect Union. Everyone considers the canon to be closed and virtually unamendable barring an act of God. If that all is not a religion, what on earth is?
anon291 2y ago
I mean it changes relatively frequently (every few decades). The last time was 1992 when it was modified by citizen petition to the various state legislatures.
richrichie 2y ago
Tyranny by the majority is the worst. USSR, Nazi Germany and the recent draconian controls and mandated medication are horrifying examples. Constitution is like morals or guiding principles. They should not change frequently. If the overwhelming majority agrees on a change, then of course it can happen. It has happened many times.
- numbsafari 2y ago
  > Tyranny by the majority is the worst. > If the overwhelming majority agrees on a change, then of course it can happen. You should trying listening to yourself.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    [flagged]
- pennomi 2y ago
  Surely a tyranny of the minority is objectively worse than a tyranny of the majority, right?
  - richrichie 2y ago
    No it is not. The minority can be forcibly removed, shut down etc. It is much harder, requires much more bloodshed to remove tyranny of the majority.
adolph 2y ago
their interpretation and reinterpretations of what the founding pantheon ordained. In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times The paragraph as a whole was written as if the above two claims were contradictory. To the degree that the framers intended the constitution to be a living document, there is provision for a court to interpret the document and for the legislature and states to apply updates. Are there some other unrealized means for a constitution to be more alive?
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
The rule of the majority has another name: mob rule. The framers of the constitution greatly feared this and wanted to create a document precisely to avoid the mob rule of the majority. Thats the reality of the constitution. You may not like that maine has the same voting power than California. But thats by design. It was meant to create a more equal union. And thats why the united states experiment has outlasted almost all governments [1] that ruled the day when a tiny band of settlers in the boodnocks decided to declare independence from the world's then superpower, UK. I find it silly that some contemporaries, who cannot begin to even grasp that basic tenet of how the constitution was created in the embers of pure danger, would think that a modern bystander would have a "better" grasp of what the founders meant. It reeks of lack of humility and empathy [1] I believe only the swiss has had uninterrupted lawful government since 1776.
samatman 2y ago
> In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times, not an immutable ledger of all our misdeeds and misjudgements. The motte of this sort of claim is the essence of English common law, in which precedent and interpretation of the written law is the responsibility of the courts. The bailey is the premise that judges who dislike the law should disregard it, and rule the country by proclamation of new law which they have claimed to discover within the law as written and understood before their inventions. I support the first of these, not the second. If you don't care for the law we have, there are mechanisms to change the law of the land. Yes, some of them are difficult. That doesn't give the judiciary the right to cheat the process.
Tao3300 2y ago
> The absurdity in the constitution is getting to be almost biblical That seems to be the point of the experiment in TFA, considering that previously this guy did this exact same thing with the Bible.

kiba 2y ago

The constitution is not readily amendable. So basically the only way of changing the constitution to fit present day need is to have judges do creative interpretation.

clipsy 2y ago
It's exactly as readily amendable as it ever was, and previous generations were demonstrably able to amend it.
- metadat 2y ago
  The Constitution hasn't been amended since 1992, which was 32 years ago. Is this a good sign? That's more than 10% of the history of the nation, which comparatively is a lot of time to not incorporate new changes as society and norms evolve. It is fundamentally valid to question whether or not the constitution is still an effective vehicle for advocating for the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens.
  - codingdave 2y ago
    Multi-decade gaps between amendments are not uncommon in USA's history. 1804-1865 was a big gap, and the country was much younger then.
    - metadat 2y ago
      The rate of change was also a lot less 200 years ago. What is your position? Are you saying it's all good these days?
      - talldayo 2y ago
        The last what, 5 amendments were all basic common-sense maintenance updates. The 22nd and 21st amendments were the last ones that were arguably significant. Do you have anything particular in mind that you think needs addressing? It feels like you're suggesting that liberal society should be making more amendments but I really don't know what America can agree to change right now.
        metadat 2y ago
        I completely agree with you, America agrees-on very little these days. It's unfortunate, because we kind of set the benchmark for Earth at present. It's a grand experiment at scale..
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        throwawa14223 2y ago
        Maybe if we can't agree we shouldn't be amending the social contract?
        metadat 2y ago
        Being tribal isn't beneficial at scale. Requiring universal agreement would halt all societal progress. Sometimes folks need a nudge to adjust.
        throwawa14223 2y ago
        > I don't know how to reply, other than just "Nope". Cool, no need to waste my time then.
  - smeej 2y ago
    Well, there are only 27 ratified amendments total, the first 10 of which were passed at once, so 17 in 248 years makes 32 a little more than twice the average amount of time, but they also tend to happen in clusters, and gaps between clusters have been longer than this before, so I don't think it's even all that anomalous.
  - naasking 2y ago
    > more than 10% of the history of the nation, which comparatively is a lot of time to not incorporate new changes as society and norms evolve. The constitution is not supposed to change quickly. It's supposed to act as a bulwark against government overreach driven by sudden populist mobs or public paranoia.
  - Brybry 2y ago
    The crazier thing is that the 1992 amendment (the 27th) was proposed by Congress in 1789 but was still "live" to be ratified by the States in the 1980s/1990s. [1] If wikipedia is correct then Congress hasn't passed an amendment proposal in 46 years. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Revival_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Ri...
    - adolph 2y ago
      Epic! It might well have been a C paper in quality but Watson aced the follow-through. [the] amendment was largely forgotten until Gregory Watson, an undergraduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper on the subject in 1982 for a political science course. In the paper, Watson argued that the amendment was still "live" and could be ratified. Watson received a "C" grade for his paper from one of the course's teaching assistants. Watson appealed the grade to the course instructor, Sharon Waite, who declined to overrule the teaching assistant. Waite has said, "I kind of glanced at it, but I didn't see anything that was particularly outstanding about it and I thought the C was probably fine".

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

philips 2y ago

It seems as if the two party system cemented everything until an absolute disaster is at hand. I have hopes that RCV and National Popular Vote can at least add some dynamism to the system. But, besides that, I am at a loss for solutions. Although I found this recent discussion with Jon Stewart left some more breadcrumbs in my mind to follow. https://youtu.be/n_EofYXRBnM?si=6GL_bT6siM9A7IHn https://youtu.be/n_EofYXRBnM?si=6GL_bT6siM9A7IHn

richrichie 2y ago
I think being a good citizen is where it starts. It used to be the case - no matter who won, people rallied behind the elected for the good of the country. Things have become very different since 2016.
- philips 2y ago
  If you are saying rallying behind a president no matter what is part of being a good citizen then I disagree wholeheartedly. Since I began voting I have experienced two votes, including 2016, where the President lost the popular vote. Very very difficult to rally behind someone who wins through a bad quirk of our democracy. It is a sad history[1] and the only fix I know of is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
- vharuck 2y ago
  I honestly don't remember this ever being the case. There were always large groups of people who hated the president and blamed most of society's woes on him and his entire party.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    People rallied behind Bush Jr even though he was a rank idiot and was surrounded by crazy neocons (most of who now are part of Democratic party). In many ways he was worse than Trump.

labster 2y ago

Not sure what you mean by almost biblical, it’s all the way there. There are the originalists, who believe in interpreting the Constitution as originally spoken by the prophets, er, founding fathers. Basically sharia constitutional law. The other side believes in the Logos, the living word of the Constitution, which changes its meaning as our society evolves to a more perfect Union. Everyone considers the canon to be closed and virtually unamendable barring an act of God. If that all is not a religion, what on earth is?

anon291 2y ago

I mean it changes relatively frequently (every few decades). The last time was 1992 when it was modified by citizen petition to the various state legislatures.

richrichie 2y ago

Tyranny by the majority is the worst. USSR, Nazi Germany and the recent draconian controls and mandated medication are horrifying examples. Constitution is like morals or guiding principles. They should not change frequently. If the overwhelming majority agrees on a change, then of course it can happen. It has happened many times.

numbsafari 2y ago
> Tyranny by the majority is the worst. > If the overwhelming majority agrees on a change, then of course it can happen. You should trying listening to yourself.
- richrichie 2y ago
  [flagged]
pennomi 2y ago
Surely a tyranny of the minority is objectively worse than a tyranny of the majority, right?
- richrichie 2y ago
  No it is not. The minority can be forcibly removed, shut down etc. It is much harder, requires much more bloodshed to remove tyranny of the majority.

adolph 2y ago

their interpretation and reinterpretations of what the founding pantheon ordained. In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times The paragraph as a whole was written as if the above two claims were contradictory. To the degree that the framers intended the constitution to be a living document, there is provision for a court to interpret the document and for the legislature and states to apply updates. Are there some other unrealized means for a constitution to be more alive?

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago

The rule of the majority has another name: mob rule. The framers of the constitution greatly feared this and wanted to create a document precisely to avoid the mob rule of the majority. Thats the reality of the constitution. You may not like that maine has the same voting power than California. But thats by design. It was meant to create a more equal union. And thats why the united states experiment has outlasted almost all governments [1] that ruled the day when a tiny band of settlers in the boodnocks decided to declare independence from the world's then superpower, UK. I find it silly that some contemporaries, who cannot begin to even grasp that basic tenet of how the constitution was created in the embers of pure danger, would think that a modern bystander would have a "better" grasp of what the founders meant. It reeks of lack of humility and empathy [1] I believe only the swiss has had uninterrupted lawful government since 1776.

samatman 2y ago

> In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times, not an immutable ledger of all our misdeeds and misjudgements. The motte of this sort of claim is the essence of English common law, in which precedent and interpretation of the written law is the responsibility of the courts. The bailey is the premise that judges who dislike the law should disregard it, and rule the country by proclamation of new law which they have claimed to discover within the law as written and understood before their inventions. I support the first of these, not the second. If you don't care for the law we have, there are mechanisms to change the law of the land. Yes, some of them are difficult. That doesn't give the judiciary the right to cheat the process.

Tao3300 2y ago

> The absurdity in the constitution is getting to be almost biblical That seems to be the point of the experiment in TFA, considering that previously this guy did this exact same thing with the Bible.