Thomas Jefferson thought the U.S. Constitution ought to be rewritten every 19 years

[moderate libertarian]

TJ was sipping wine aged for 19 years when he said this.

All right, I'm J/K.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Thomas Jefferson thought a lot of things.

I, for one, really don't care, what Thomas Jefferson thought.


It's a good thing that the Constitution is amendable and changeable, but when you fully rewrite it every 2 decades, you seriously undermine it's stability.

Imagine where we would be today, if the Constitution had been re-written fifteen times.

We might have had these amendments which were proposed but never ratified if it was:

1916 All acts of war shall be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

1936 An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war

1947 The income tax for an individual shall not exceed 25% (a step in the right direction at least).

1971 American citizens should have the alienable right to an environment free of pollution (it sounds good but I'm not even sure this is enforceable without us becoming some totalitarian state so I'll say no to this one).

I definitely care what Thomas Jefferson had to say. I can think of a few things I'd like to change in the Constitution (how about that pesky income tax?)

 

[Czolgosz]

How about just a 19 year reset button? All laws and regulations not in the Constitution are wiped, the Constitution continues w/ it's core and any previous amendments ratified, finally any proposed amendments are discussed and possibly ratified.

 

[awake]

"Conventional wisdom" dictates that it be rewritten as a matter of political expediency.

 

[Evangelical_Protestant]

Justice doesn't change with time. There has only ever been one truth, and an infinite number of corruptions on every topic. People always think there is some massive change in consciousness throughout time, but I think there are only corruptions in original truth, then a turning back away from the later corruption to the original truth, which is then seen as some new exciting endeavor in human philosophy. In reality anything you could possibly imagine has already been tried somewhere by somebody.

The thing that has been, it is that which will be; and that which is done is that which will be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

So basically what I'm trying to say is...that I do not support writing the constitution every nineteen years.

 

[WarNoMore]

Anything that allows the people to have more of a say in how they are governed(including self-governorship), is a good idea to me. It also makes the people put thought into the type of government they wish to have, another positive benefit. right now people are just automatons for a 2 party oligarchical system.

 

[Seraphim]

This was not the intent of what he was saying.

Human experience is a state of perpetual change and learning.

The principals of liberty NEVER change, they are constant. Our subjective understanding of liberty DOES change as we learn from generations prior.

The Constitution of the USA, although fantastic, is not perfect. This statement by TJ is an excercise in HUMILITY. Wise enough to understand that they were not perfect, ergo the Constitution is not perfect...and SHOULD be amended when a flaw within it's contents is shown to hinder LIBERTY.

How silly to believe that the philosophy of liberty changes every 19 years.

Are people to rewrite the rules of math every 19 years as well? Will 2+2 = 6 next year?

 

[MaxPower]

It's a bit obtuse to just say "Jefferson thought the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years;" rather, Jefferson suggested as much once in a letter to Madison (who disagreed), and shortly thereafter abandoned the idea. If you live to be 86 years old, write literally tens of thousands of letters, and at one point have an idea which you raise and then drop within the span of a year, do you think it would be reasonable to state in an unqualified sense, "smartguy911 thought X"?

Beyond that, I want to state that it is absurd to try to use this as an argument against Constitutional originalism; Jefferson said "The Constitution should be replaced or renewed every 19 years," not "If we don't change or replace the Constitution, we should just pretend it says something else every 19 years." Furthermore, well over 19 years past the passage of the Constitution, Jefferson was still defending constitutionalism, and specifically originalist constitutionalism, as this quote illustrates:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Jefferson to William Johnson, June 12th, 1823.

 

[farrar]

As an Englishman, I can't quite grasp why numerous individuals within the American liberty movement like the constitution so much. Surely freedom is derived from self-ownership not some document? You shouldn't have freedom because some piece of paper says so, you should be free because it's morally right.

It makes your argument a lot more palatable to frame it around the constitution (At least to a lot of americans and conservatives). Most people, even here don't really care about what the constitution says. And for those of you who claim you do, how many of you would still agree with the constitution if an amendment was passed legalizing slavery, or clarifying and permitting the abuse of the commerce clause? We even question the income tax and the election of senators even though there is an amendment for them. Is their really a reason to question those amendments, or are we just looking for a way to defend the constitution without defending it?

just saying.

 

[Pericles]

It makes your argument a lot more palatable to frame it around the constitution (At least to a lot of americans and conservatives). Most people, even here don't really care about what the constitution says. And for those of you who claim you do, how many of you would still agree with the constitution if an amendment was passed legalizing slavery, or clarifying and permitting the abuse of the commerce clause? We even question the income tax and the election of senators even though there is an amendment for them. Is their really a reason to question those amendments, or are we just looking for a way to defend the constitution without defending it?

just saying.

It is instructive that in oder for the federal government to enforce prohibition and tax income, it was necessary to pass amendments to the Constitution, as ill advised as they many be. That such is no longer the case for each expansion of federal power is also instructive.

As to the value of the US Constitution,, or Magna Carta for that matter, both documents are a statement of principle that individuals have rights against the rest of society (whatever form that society may take) which the individual may enforce via either a peaceful process if society allows, or by violence if society makes no provision for the respect of individual rights.

 

[fisharmor]

Most people, even here don't really care about what the constitution says.

Sorry to go here, but a demonstration is necessary:

And for those of you who claim you do, how many of you would still agree with the constitution if an amendment was passed legalizing slavery

According to the United States Constitution in its current form, slavery is legal in the United States.

ETA: I'm not intending to imply you don't care what it says. Just demonstrating that unless society in general is willing to learn colossally important things like this, the US constitution isn't binding shit.

 

[Czolgosz]

Justice doesn't change with time. There has only ever been one truth, and an infinite number of corruptions on every topic. People always think there is some massive change in consciousness throughout time, but I think there are only corruptions in original truth, then a turning back away from the later corruption to the original truth, which is then seen as some new exciting endeavor in human philosophy. In reality anything you could possibly imagine has already been tried somewhere by somebody.

The thing that has been, it is that which will be; and that which is done is that which will be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

So basically what I'm trying to say is...that I do not support writing the constitution every nineteen years.

You are dead on correct about change. Humans are so myopic, they act as though the revelation in front of them is something new.

 

[sailingaway]

There is a means within it for amending it, and it is intentionally difficult. You should NOT be able to centrally commit that many people without that level of buy in.

 

[sailingaway]

Sorry to go here, but a demonstration is necessary:

According to the United States Constitution in its current form, slavery is legal in the United States.

ETA: I'm not intending to imply you don't care what it says. Just demonstrating that unless society in general is willing to learn colossally important things like this, the US constitution isn't binding shit.

That is not true. An amendment was adopted against that.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

That is not true. An amendment was adopted against that.

That's what I thought also...what's up with that?