I never understood why Americans treat their Constitution like some holy book
I never understood why Americans treat their Constitution like some holy book
You're viewing a single thread.
245 comments
-
This is a pretty ignorant take. We can change the rules whenever we want. This is the whole process of amendments.
-
I would be mildly surprised if there's every another amendment again, very surprised if there's one in our lifetime.
-
Nah, i would 100% believe term limits for supreme court eventually or maybe even repeal/revise of the 16th amendment.... amendment to limit tax dollars used on foreign engagements... amendment to make funding to congress transparent... amendment to put limits on predatory loans.... amendment to officially not allow sitting presidents to run businesses..
Idunno feels like theres still some bipartisan opportunities
-
When you say "eventually," what are we talking about? Is this simply the passage of time or would something have to change, in your opinion?
-
Honestly i can only speculate but my best guess is that these changes could be driven after mass protests in the coming years and the senior citizens of our senate dying off.
-
-
-
-
We can change the rules whenever we want.
Can we? The Equal Rights Amendment was supported by a majority of Americans but it never passed.
-
If only they supported it enough to actually show up at the elections that would have affected the chance of the amendment passing.
-
Hmmm, it's been a while since ive read about read about that one, but wasnt there contraversy on the wording of that? Like it could adversely affect womens rights if that were passed or that it is the same protections under the 14th... but last time I checked something like 3/4 of all the states have already ratified the ERA in the states side. It is a weird one
-
The opposition of the ERA was almost entirely from the right and focused on scaremongering about the end of traditional gender roles.
-
Dont get me wrong, i know the opposition was coming from the right but im just saying what I remember the reasoning was. Places like New York and Oregon have codified it into their own state constitutions where as Oklahoma and Alabama havent.
I know it took many years to allow same sex marriage but it fell under the 14th. I would like to think that these sorts of rights are only bound to be given within my lifetime.
-
-
-
-
I think the take has more to do with the rather depressing amount of originalists stocking the courts of American Constitutional law. Like Justice's Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Barrett. Originalism in Constitutional law practice draws it's primary guiding light from the idea that Constitutional law should be adjudicated based on what the perspective of what the authors of the founding documents intentions were. Often this leads to extremely anachronistic takes on the document rather than a concern for the people whom it effects because it treats the country as though the greatest authority is to fictionalized versions of it's authors rather than the needs of it's living citizenry.
The constitution itself is an important document... but it is less important than the principles that guide how it is actively utilized by living justices.
-
That's exactly the problem, it is impossible to change it now. The system itself prevents any more changes because it has become so archaic and corrupt.
-
245 comments