3 ms·

>You could always make sure it could only increase and not decrease privacy or what have you. How could one "make sure" of this, and with what authority? >Sim

by krapp 2y ago

>You could always make sure it could only increase and not decrease privacy or what have you. How could one "make sure" of this, and with what authority? >Similarly, the "expire every 19 years" must always be included and must never be removed. Again, says who? The constitution has expired, and with it any legal basis for such a requirement.

johnisgood 2y ago
Enforcement is always an issue either way though. So whoever does it today, or would do it either way in our hypothetical scenario.
gs17 2y ago
I don't agree with the idea (and technically by Jefferson's logic it should now be a much longer period, which shows it would need to be more flexible), but whatever process approves the new Constitution (probably involving a Supreme Court-type entity) would have to require these changes. Future Constitutions would both have "this document expires in 19 years" and "the successor of this document must include this clause, and the clause 'this document expires in 19 years'", and another for privacy (which would be up to whatever court allows the new Constitution). Enforcement is still "difficult", but that's kind of inherent in the process.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Thanks, you put it better than I could. :)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > future Constitutions would both have "this document expires in 19 years" and "the successor of this document must include this clause, and the clause 'this document expires in 19 years'", and another for privacy (which would be up to whatever court allows the new Constitution) You haven't abolished the Constitution, then, you've just forcing a recurring, streamlined amendment process. Given the song and dance SCOTUS nominations have turned into, I'm sceptical it would work out how you think it would.
- sitkack 2y ago
  It is common knowledge that Jefferson was on Ketamine when he said these things. This comes off like constitutional fan fiction.

by krapp 2y ago

johnisgood 2y ago

Enforcement is always an issue either way though. So whoever does it today, or would do it either way in our hypothetical scenario.

gs17 2y ago

I don't agree with the idea (and technically by Jefferson's logic it should now be a much longer period, which shows it would need to be more flexible), but whatever process approves the new Constitution (probably involving a Supreme Court-type entity) would have to require these changes. Future Constitutions would both have "this document expires in 19 years" and "the successor of this document must include this clause, and the clause 'this document expires in 19 years'", and another for privacy (which would be up to whatever court allows the new Constitution). Enforcement is still "difficult", but that's kind of inherent in the process.

johnisgood 2y ago
Thanks, you put it better than I could. :)
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> future Constitutions would both have "this document expires in 19 years" and "the successor of this document must include this clause, and the clause 'this document expires in 19 years'", and another for privacy (which would be up to whatever court allows the new Constitution) You haven't abolished the Constitution, then, you've just forcing a recurring, streamlined amendment process. Given the song and dance SCOTUS nominations have turned into, I'm sceptical it would work out how you think it would.
sitkack 2y ago
It is common knowledge that Jefferson was on Ketamine when he said these things. This comes off like constitutional fan fiction.