It literally has amendments. The latest one was ratified in 1992. The founding fathers considered the constitution to be a living document, hence why there is an amendment process.
Ironically, the people treating the constitution like gospel are the same people that keep ignoring it.
It’s the thing conservatives do. They just say stuff for effect and don’t care about truth or consistency.
The Constitution is a perfect document that must be upheld when it suits their goals, and a living document that must be updated when that suits their goals instead. They are liars. They should not be accepted in polite society.
The same founding fathers that apparently thought it was a document that would probably be replaced after a few decades? (Or is this something everyone says that has no basis in reality? )
Maybe? I don’t recall them suggesting that it should be replaced every few decades.
Worth pointing out that there is a process in the constitution for changing the constitution, but there is no process for replacing the entire document. So I’d say there is pretty obvious intent for the document to change/evolve over time.
Hypothetically, we could amend the constitution to have a process for replacing the whole document though.
It literally has amendments. The latest one was ratified in 1992. The founding fathers considered the constitution to be a living document, hence why there is an amendment process.
Ironically, the people treating the constitution like gospel are the same people that keep ignoring it.
It’s the thing conservatives do. They just say stuff for effect and don’t care about truth or consistency.
The Constitution is a perfect document that must be upheld when it suits their goals, and a living document that must be updated when that suits their goals instead. They are liars. They should not be accepted in polite society.
The same founding fathers that apparently thought it was a document that would probably be replaced after a few decades? (Or is this something everyone says that has no basis in reality? )
Maybe? I don’t recall them suggesting that it should be replaced every few decades.
Worth pointing out that there is a process in the constitution for changing the constitution, but there is no process for replacing the entire document. So I’d say there is pretty obvious intent for the document to change/evolve over time.
Hypothetically, we could amend the constitution to have a process for replacing the whole document though.