7 ms·

Surely you would expect the rate of change to drop off after a time, right? The Constitution is not a very long document, so it cannot contain an infinite numbe

by db48x 9d ago

Surely you would expect the rate of change to drop off after a time, right? The Constitution is not a very long document, so it cannot contain an infinite number of errors. At some point they’ll all be fixed and then no more evolution will be required. There have been some amendments that corrected omissions from the Constitution, but I don’t see how there could be an infinite number of those either. And I don’t see why you think no future evolution can happen. The process for amending the Constitution hasn’t changed any. It remains as easy or as hard as it ever was. But I suppose you are right that we often have activist judges who think that it is their job to reinterpret the words of the Constitution. There are quite a few bad rulings that have resulted from that. But the ideal is that we don’t reinterpret the words. It is a human failing that we sometimes succumb to the temptation.

ceejayoz 8d ago
> Surely you would expect the rate of change to drop off after a time, right? Why would you expect that, when societal change historically accelerates over time? > The process for amending the Constitution hasn’t changed any. In the sense that walking to work didn't change when people moved to the suburbs. Jefferson wrote on this: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-024... "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly & without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal & vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
roryirvine 8d ago
France has had 11 amendments to its constitution in the 21st century, South Africa and Ireland have had 13 each, Germany has had 20, and India 27. There isn't really any reason to suppose that the USA should be so very different.

by db48x 9d ago

ceejayoz 8d ago

> Surely you would expect the rate of change to drop off after a time, right? Why would you expect that, when societal change historically accelerates over time? > The process for amending the Constitution hasn’t changed any. In the sense that walking to work didn't change when people moved to the suburbs. Jefferson wrote on this: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-024... "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly & without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal & vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

roryirvine 8d ago

France has had 11 amendments to its constitution in the 21st century, South Africa and Ireland have had 13 each, Germany has had 20, and India 27. There isn't really any reason to suppose that the USA should be so very different.