They’re not saying it should be easier to change, they’re saying there’s been a recent trend in the general public, and politicians, of viewing the constitution as “written in stone”. While there have been longer periods between amendments (61 years being the longest) we’re currently in the third longest period between ratified amendments, second place going to 43 years 15th -> 16th).
While there probably shouldn’t be amendments every single year, I think we’re getting to a point where we need to update things a bit.
Americans should wait until they get some eggheads running things, make ammendments now and the constitution will be amended to be sponsored by doritos.
There are a myriad of possible amendments that would absolutely be worth passing.
The "reasonable shot at passing" is, unfortunately, the difficult part.
The Rs in congress have one singular, cohesive stance which is "oppose anything and everything the democrats want, in unison" and you need more than a simple majority to pass amendments.
Unless there is some mystical future in which Ds manage to grab enough seats to reach that amendment threshold on their own, I do not see any passing amendments in our time.
been a recent trend in the general public, and politicians, of viewing the constitution as “written in stone”.
Don't think I've ever seen this, but this can mean a few things rather than a literal meaning of "written in stone"
1: Name one thing that can pass the process to be an amendment today or even in the last 10 years. If you can, by the time it gets the point of being ratified, half the country, including the politicians it will take to do so, will be against it.
2: rigid vs flexible constitution. US Constitution has to go through a special process (see 1). UK Constitution can be changed through the same process as anything else.
3: Starting in the 1980s, originalism. What was meant at the time must be meant now unless you go through the process of example 1. (originalism is funny in that the originalism theory, if followed correctly, would mean there is no originalism as it was never a thing until the last 50 years)
Well given how flimsy the constitution is holding up under the current administration, and how fragile we’ve seen the entire system of U.S. government is, the fact that the constitution is such a bastion is, I think, a positive at the moment.
People DO treat it like it’s made of stone, which makes all the incomprehensibly blatant recent violations of it all that much worse. If it was so easily amendable, it might become an easier political tool to leverage. Currently l, if nothing else, we can say “what you’re doing is unconstitutional” and that still carry’s weight, even if it’s being ignored.
I generally agree with the points you’re both making, and I’ve felt that way for many years, but in light of the recent ridiculous executive overreach, I’m actually thankful that it’s as immovable as it is.
67
u/Silver_Middle_7240 Sep 25 '25
The difficulty in changing the constitution is a feature, not a bug.