• CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    Honestly, we’d do better with an Article 5 constitution convention.

    The constitution was never meant to be something that was interpreted from the lens of when it was written. The Framers specifically made a way for states to rewrite the Constitution to adopt with the changing times.

    Edit: clarified my comment as it was a bit ambiguous

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      The constitution was never meant to be a living document.

      See the 27 amendments and the process laid out in Article V for actually changing the damn thing. I think it’s weird you referenced the literal part about how to amend it and came to the conclusion that it wasn’t supposed to be amended. Just cause politicians have given up on their duties to work for the general populous doesn’t mean the document wasn’t meant to change.

      Edit: previous author rewrote and clarified their meaning.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 days ago

        I’m going to edit my comment to be a bit clearer but the Framers knew that the Constitution wasn’t meant for all time, that the document would need to be rewritten to reflect the changing values and issues in the present age. The easiest example is the third amendment. While it’s important, yes, that we not be required to quarter troops in our homes, it isn’t exactly the main issue facing us as a nation.

        Fucking conservative judges, however, seem to think that the “history and culture” of the document should trump whatever issue is going on now.