[JumpCrisscross]

> Such a thing has not been done since 1992

We’re a 235-year old republic. Changing the firmware once every 10 to 15% of the time seems fine.

> and not on a politically charged question since 1971

This is a feature. If a question is charged it should be resolved first federally, through the states, and then politically, via the legislature. Only once there is consensus should it be elevated to Constitutional status. That is the only way to get a Constitution Americans believe in with intergenerational force.

[LudwigNagasena]

The problem is that in reality it gets “resolved” through the executive branch or by legalisating from the bench. That ultimately degrades all political institutions.

Can FBI arrest you for marijuana possession in a state where weed is “legal”? It should arrest you, weed is illegal, the government just decided to not enforce its own law. The government can just say “It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute X”[1] and everyone is ok with that.

If even simple laws get bent so easily, what’s left of the constitution? The words inside the Commerce Clause stayed the same for hundreds of years, yet what it “means” (ie how it’s used by the Federal Government to assert its power) have changed profoundly [2].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20091023034358/http://www.reuter...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[jltsiren]

I believe that a constitution should get a full rewrite once every 50-60 years. That's to only way to ensure that the constitution remains legitimate and relevant.

The US does not really have a constitution. There is a set of documents that claims to be the constitution, but it's so out of date that it can't serve as one. Then there is the Supreme Court, which can change the actual constitution easily with its creative interpretations. Because there is no need for a widespread consensus for changing the constitution, its legitimacy remains questionable at best.

[Andrex]

The Constitution is a divining rod to cut through hundreds of years of patchwork caselaw and legislation. Its true use is in a psychological "what would God/The Constitution want?" sense.

Does it make rational sense? Not really, but my reading of history shows a stronger national identity if tied to something "beyond." Whether that be God, Pharaoh, the Founding Fathers, what have you.

[krapp]

>Its true use is in a psychological "what would God/The Constitution want?" sense.

That's its purpose as the holy writ of the civil religion of the United States. And indeed, the Supreme Court derives their authority to judge the Constitutionality of matters from, in essence, divining the will of the Prophets (Founding Fathers) in interpreting this divine scripture. And as with the Pope, they remain infallible even when they contradict themselves, as well as unaccountable.

However, my reading of history has shown that strong national identities built around the worship of state and national myths tend towards dark and bloody ends.

In reality, The Constitution is what it is. A 200 year old legal fiction. A compromise between flawed, mortal men written to serve the needs of an agrarian society far closer to medieval than modern, created with the expectation that times and needs can change.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

You cannot use that process for constitutional questions.

Consider the dispute in the USA over the correct intepretation of the 2nd Amendment. A state (such as NY) implements legislation embodying that state's interpretation of the amendment. SCOTUS rules that the legislation in fact violates the amendment. No change is possible until the constitution is changed ... or the composition of the SCOTUS is modified, and a new court decides that stare decisis is not relevant, which leads to a different type of change to the constitution: interpretation.

The only way to change the actual text of the constitution is to change the constitution, and that does not require consensus, just a super-majority.

[Gormo]

And given that the point of a constitution is to set the bounds within policy-making takes place, rather than to enact policy on any specific issue, this is a very important thing.

Past attempts to shoehorn answers to specific policy questions into the constitution have been disasters, but even if they hadn't been, using constitutional amendment as a vehicle for policy is effectively the same as having no constitution at all.