• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Have we been looking at Article 5 incorrectly?

They were handled not the the Constitution, but by people.
red herring.
You're missing the point. If the Constitution were so ****ing infallible, we wouldn't have wasted 600,000 American souls to fix its flaws. In 2023, that 600,000 total is more like 6 million. So there you have it: it take an American holocaust to fix the Constitution's flaws, and even then, they weren't really fixed.
No one is claiming anyone or anything was "infallible".
 
According to the interweb:

The two ways in which an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed is by the Congress proposing an amendment by a two-thirds vote in both houses. The second way is the legislatures of two-thirds of the states - 34 out of 50 - can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose an amendment.

My calculator says that 11000 divided by 240 comes to over 45 proposed Amendments a year…..shrug:
If I'm not mistaken there have been zero amendments coming the state legislatures route? I was surprised to see that in the 116th Congress there were 78 proposed. Must have been some doozies.
 
I'm sure I could look it up but I'm not inclined to do so. I'm sure you know your way around the internet.
You brought up the point. I thought you might have been curious about your own post?
 
No Constitution is perfect and the assumption that a Constitution can be anywhere close to perfect is what ruins Constitutions. All sacred texts are interpreted by the living, and texts mean different things to different people across different generations and time. That is why I believe in flexible, living, malleable constitutional interpretations. Originalism kills it, because you're asking people alive today to live according to ideas and standards that are foreign to them.

The living decide whether the constitution lives or dies.
And the US Constitution is a living document. I think the either/or aspect of our politics is what prevents more enumerated changes.
 
And the US Constitution is a living document. I think the either/or aspect of our politics is what prevents more enumerated changes.

I think the Constitution is a fine document, actually. But we're missing the point. Systems can be created as the most pristine perfect blueprint of ideas. Everything in this universe undergoes entropy. Systems are born, they develop, they age, they deteriorate, and they end up dead. Our systems are no different. We're not exceptional.
 
In the light of a new day, do you want another shot at this?

How do you define a country’s constitution?
"Define it"? Maybe just by pointing at it.
 
I think the Constitution is a fine document, actually. But we're missing the point. Systems can be created as the most pristine perfect blueprint of ideas. Everything in this universe undergoes entropy. Systems are born, they develop, they age, they deteriorate, and they end up dead. Our systems are no different. We're not exceptional.
You believe that the Constitution of 1790 is the same Constitution as we have today? I'm not talking about Amendments (though those have changed the Constitution as well). It has changed dramatically over time, by history and traditions (political parties), court cases (Brown v BOE), and basic legislation (Voting Rights Act of 1965).

I disagree with your conclusion.
 
Back
Top Bottom