Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JumpCrisscross 1429 days ago
> Why are we using a 200+ year old document

Because it’s worked. The alternative, opening up the entire system of government for debate, simultaneously, continuously, predictably tears itself apart in a generation. (That or you wind up with an unwritten Constitution only the elites can decipher.) The Constitution isn’t sacred. But it’s far from worthless as a basis of our society.
2 comments
carbadtraingood 1429 days ago
Most modern, developed nations regularly update their constitutions. The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.
link
ChrisLomont 1429 days ago
>The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.

The Constitution was amended 12 times in the 1900s, the last being 1992. There are still multiple pending amendments.

And, as a Union of States, each also with constitutions and amendments, how do you treat the overall legal entity? Most developed nations are about the size of a US state - and some are slowly banding into larger groups like the EU.

So how is this anomalous? Do you have some list of developed nations rate of constitution updates? Are any of the structure like the US as a union of semi-autonomous states?

link
carbadtraingood 1429 days ago
1992 amendment was proposed in the 1700s, you have to go back more than 50 years to get to the next amendment.

> Do you have some list of developed nations rate of constitution updates?

Yes. https://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/chronology/#

link
ChrisLomont 1429 days ago
It's missing state constitutions. The US is a United States of America - a union of semi-autonomous states.

Picking only a high level misses that there are higher levels (such as world treaties and laws we are entered into) and ignores that the US is a conglomeration. When you'd pick Germany, but ignore EU rules, it's somewhat like picking Texas, and ignoring US.

It seems you're not really comparing frameworks very well.

link
hotpotamus 1429 days ago
To listen to conservatives, we spent most of the 20th century creating violation after violation of the constitution. If they're correct, then to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century.
link
JumpCrisscross 1429 days ago
> to me that means that the constitution hasn't worked in about a century

The century that saw America exit WWII and the Cold War victorious while navigating a civil rights revolution? All amidst a series of peaceful transitions of powers, including the removal of a corrupt executive?

link
hotpotamus 1429 days ago
I believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them. I mean, they wouldn't say that because it sounds crazy, but if you piece together what they say about the constitution, that's the message that comes through to me.
link
JumpCrisscross 1429 days ago
> believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them

One can say many things. At the end of the day, the track record stands for itself.

link
hotpotamus 1428 days ago
Yes, and many do not like that track record. For instance, allowing women to have abortions, and they now have the ability to alter that track.
link
JumpCrisscross 1428 days ago
> many do not like that track record

This is separate from the question of whether the Constitution worked. It did. It produced a stable, powerful society. That some people are dissatisfied doesn’t refute that track record. It just points out there are dimensions on which it failed some.

link