• Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Constitution was written so that it could be changed frequently. Founders thought it’d be wholly replaced every few decades by such an amendment. It’s point was it’s immutability. Therefore the founders simply didn’t realize how impossible that would become.

    • duckCityComplex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I think the founders would be really disappointed to see the constitution revered like a religious text.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they’d be more disappointed to see we not only let black people vote, we let them own property.

      • VegaLyrae@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems like we’ve actually grown further from treating it as such.

        For the first half of US history the constitution was more often than not tightly interpreted.

        I imagine many things we take for granted today would not stand under the same level of constitutional rigor without an enabling amendment.

        Honestly I wouldn’t mind going back to a stricter interpretation, but we do need to get back to making amendments.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s “mutability”. “Immutable” means “not changing”. Like “mutation”, “im” like “im-possible” or “im-material”.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are correct! I’m not speaking to intent, I’m speaking to modern reality.