Thoughts on a Second Stimulus Package?

[Inkstain82]

Originally Posted by cptacek

We could actually amend the Constitution right out of existence. But, because that hasn't happened, it must mean that we the people don't want it to happen. We could amend the Constitution so that we would have to rewrite it every x years. But, because that hasn't happened, it must mean that we the people don't want it to happen. We could what ever the heck we want in there, we just have to get the correct number of and kind of votes and signatures, and there it is.

The amendment process is much more onerous than you imply. Yes, it exists, but it's very easy for amendments with large popular support to get nowhere. The Equal Rights Amendment is a perfect example.

Let me guess. Because you and others who think like you realize it could never be changed to what you want, you will hope for a couple Supreme Court openings that can force it upon us.

You guess incorrectly (and I find the desire to paint someone who disagrees with you in an infantilizing box and oversimplify them to be a little rude). I want the courts to be as restrained as possible in interpreting the Constitution, but I want the Constitution to change with time.

The flaws in the Constitution that make it so unadaptable are exactly the reason the Courts have overreached over time. Society isn't just going to live under a setup that doesn't fit it, so we basically ignore the Constitution and radically reinterpret it when need be rather than do the practical thing and rewrite it.

[geojen]

I have to agree with Inkstain to a point. The constitution is a historical document and should be read as such. To argue that the founding fathers were able to construct a document in the 18th century that applies perfectly to all future generations is laughable at best. This has been shown many times. If it hadn't, there would be no need to amend the document at all. Women and minorities wouldn't have been denied rights for a 100-some years, for example. They would have been given the same "inalienable rights" that white guys were.

That being said, the constitution does and should provide a guiding framework from which all future amendments should be crafted. But it is ridiculous to insist that a document that was sufficient to meet the needs of an 18th century agrarian society confined to the eastern seaboard is sufficient to meet the needs of large, globalized country.

Just my 2 cents.