Support NeoGAF

[mrklaw]

The thread about religion got me wondering. Its like all these people cite the constitution as the reason things are as they are, and you have to live with it because its what your forefathers laid down.

Aren't there these things called 'amendments'? So even the old guys realised the rules aren't fixed for eternity, and need to be changed sometimes to reflect society's changing needs.

 

[Socreges]

HOW DAAAAARRREEEE YOU DOUBT THE FOUNDING FATHERS!!

 

[Crow357]

Yes, there is a process for amending the constitution.

 

[mrklaw]

HOW DAAAAARRREEEE YOU DOUBT THE FOUNDING FATHERS!!

Hey, I'm English - we don't even have one, so I'm jealous

 

[Saturnman]

Yeah, through the years, I've noticed the founding fathers and the constitution in the US are surrounded with an aura of religiosity.

 

[Dilbert]

No, the Ten Commandments were written in stone.

Although I can see how you might get confused.

 

[Mike Works]

No, but there may be a map on the back of it.

 

[Hitokage]

Not at all. The constitution is very much a working document, but you'll have a hard time arguing to me that the basic civil liberties expressed in the first amendment have become obsolete. Actually though, the general trend is expanding such sentiment.

 

[MetatronM]

The thread about religion got me wondering. Its like all these people cite the constitution as the reason things are as they are, and you have to live with it because its what your forefathers laid down.

Aren't there these things called 'amendments'? So even the old guys realised the rules aren't fixed for eternity, and need to be changed sometimes to reflect society's changing needs.

Yes, but actually passing an amendment is extremely difficult. It's an arduous process that requires a sort of almost national concensus that is rarely ever achieved. I'm still not sure how they managed to pass the amendment banning alcohol.

At the very least, the first 10 amendments are basically all but set in stone, and those are pretty much the only ones that people ever cite. Nobody will ever dare pass an amendment amending any of those. At least not as long as politicians require the support of the people to maintain their careers. The chances of passing an amendment that would alter the basic distribution of powers between the major branches of the government are also extremely low.

 

[Hitokage]

The chances of passing an amendment that would alter the basic distribution of powers between the major branches of the government are also extremely low.

Passing such an amendment would be unnecessary if you have one of the other two in your pocket and actively discredit the other until you can get it in your pocket too.

*ahem*

 

[Flynn]

The U.S. government was designed to be slow moving and hard to steer.

The idea being that radical changes can often be made on whims. The wind may blow one way for a couple years, then shift. Our system is designed with a series of checks and balances -- a judicial, executive and legislative branch all of which keep tabs on the others (one hopes).

The Constitution was written with the same idea in mind. Sure, changes can be made, but there's a fairly rigid vote requirement to make one happen.

This, in my mind, is a good thing.

Presidents and ruling parties come and go and the damage they do can be undone, but changes to the core document of our government should only be done with a healthy concensus.

Wikipedia on our Constitution: Look below for more on Amendments...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_constitution#Amendments

 

[Greenpanda]

No, it's on paper.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

No, it's on paper.

And that paper is behind bullet proof, fire proof glass.