posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:01 PM
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan
It means that it was written out to work as the Founders wrote it out to work. The Founders wrote in the Amendment process which allowed it to change
and allowed for Women's Suffrage.
The Founders did not write it out to have "emanations and penumbras" to discover mysterious rights and privileges where there has been no Amendments
process to allow them.
Because you are completely right -- the thing was meant to be really hard to amend because it wasn't supposed to be done on a whim. It absolutely was
only supposed to be done when a near majority of the country was on board with it.
There's nothing wrong with a process that makes amendments difficult. There are however many laws which need to be interpreted or reinterpreted
without the amendment process. An originalist viewpoint makes that very, very difficult.
For example, lets take the debt limit issue. This is something that comes up every couple years, and no one is going to propose an amendment for
because they like the current system. On this issue, the Constitution is fundamentally broken. Original intent was that the peoples representatives
would decide what the federal government should and shouldn't purchase. However, this system scales very poorly. As you add more people and more
territory to the system you increase the number of spending items while also increasing the number of people that need to get on board to make that
spending happen. Back in the year 1800 when the US population was 5.3 million and we only had 16 states this was relatively easy to do. But through
the 19th century and into the 20th century the amount of time Congress had to spend on line item approvals slowly grew more and more.
When WW1 hit, there was a massive purchase of goods by the government and even with Congress devoting 100% of it's time to approving purchase orders
it couldn't keep up, and out of bureaucratic necessity, they created the debt limit to authorize purchases in bulk, and then delegate the actual
purchasing to various groups.
The debt limit was never intended to be used as a political tool, and it's not supposed to be an instrument by which Congress can shut down all
federal spending due to a single item. A true shutdown due to hitting the limit is supposed to require Congress to veto each and every item on it's
own merits. That doesn't work when you're covering the purchases of a government that has to manage 317 million people though.
Original intent propagates a broken system. A blanket shutdown was never intended to happen, and the advent of it goes entirely against what the
founders wanted. We need to eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling (something no other nation has) and find another way to manage federal spending,
and that's not something that should require an amendment to do because not only will an amendment doing away with the debt ceiling never be passed,
but the courts could force Congress to comply and make a procedural change.
edit on 20-3-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)