1208
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
1208 points (90.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
5846 readers
1905 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People can challenge it, but that's incredibly hard. In this comment political landscape, do you really imagine that the Constitution would be changed at all, let alone in any meaningful way? You're right, the framework is there, but without significant upheaval, would it be changed?
It is incredibly hard. But if you take it textually and literally, it's in there. I would actually argue that it is part of the "holy" ness is believing it will happen, despite all odds. Maybe it is more like waiting for the second coming of the Christ given the current political climate. But I think that if you treat the constitution as sacred, you are acknowledging change and historical development. The real question is probably around interpretation. Do you believe it should be interpreted explicitly and only within the historical context of the time, or is it something that needs to be reinterpreted and changing as the times change. Maybe there's a similarity there to religious fundamentalists and and how different churches and denominations all interpret the same book. All that said, treating the constitution as something sacred and foundational doesn't mean we are living in the past and afraid to change.