3 ms·
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 wha
by 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 agoThanks, 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 agoIt is common knowledge that Jefferson was on Ketamine when he said these things. This comes off like constitutional fan fiction.