4 ms·

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 interpre

by 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.
      - adolph 2y ago
        > . . . 1804-1865 was a big gap, and the country was much younger then. >> The rate of change was also a lot less 200 years ago. Not certain if that is true. For example, the Louisiana purchase was finalized in 1804, doubling the country in geographic size.
  - 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".

by 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.
    - adolph 2y ago
      > . . . 1804-1865 was a big gap, and the country was much younger then. >> The rate of change was also a lot less 200 years ago. Not certain if that is true. For example, the Louisiana purchase was finalized in 1804, doubling the country in geographic size.
- 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".