If so, then why?

  • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    I do find it odd that you guys put so much emphasis on a document written in a time nothing like today.

    Like surely it should evolve, but I can see how that would go right now so it’s probably for the best.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      5 months ago

      We do amend the Constitution from time to time, but it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of states. so it’s quite a high bar.

    • wagesj45@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Just because an idea is old, doesn’t mean its a bad idea. And we do have mechanisms for modifying the constitution. We just don’t do it often because it requires a lot of agreement.

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think we have more enlightened and more informed views now than 270 years ago is alls I’m saying.

        Just the right to bare arms is such an example. Weapons are completely different these days.

        • Wolfeh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          5 months ago

          I exercise the right to bare arms as often as possible, and my farmer’s tan is proof of that.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s the problem. No people ever think they’re the unenlightened ones. Society changes but not always for the better.

          The Constitution is a safety rail to protect us from ourselves.

        • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think we have more enlightened and more informed views now than 270 years ago is alls I’m saying.

          Bruh with literally every country on the planet turning more fascist by the day that’s a bold statement to make

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            I mean it’s like y’all are forgetting that slavery was well more prevalent in the western world, although there could be an argument for wage slavery today.

            The fact that being homosexual, trans, or whatever else was condemned and you would go to prison for such things.

            The world today is fucked, but it was a lot more fucked a couple of hundred years ago.

    • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      We don’t have parliamentary supremacy. What we have is what we have. A rough equivalent is that (assuming you’re a UK citizen) the Lords could still veto bills and the Commons couldn’t force the issue.