She thought the US constitution was read-only

It's been too long without an ammendment.

Congress votes on party lines and there hasn’t been a 2/3 supermajority since 1977.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95th_United_States_Congress
- Sadly, we can't count on cooperation in government.
- Congress votes on party lines
  Hey now. I bet you we could get some kind of bipartisan amendment through if it pertained to selling arms to Israel.

I know fully grown adults who think the constitution has never been altered, the ammendments were always there and "just what the founding fathers worked on after signing it and sending it to king George", and that any talk about congress changing things after the fact is just 'liberal propaganda" and at least one person, when asked why they think that, responded with "well I've never seen an Ammendment happen in my lifetime so obviously it doesn't happen."

Several of these adults are related, so I can see why multiple people in the same family might hold that belief, but the fact that I know MORE THAN ONE is insane to me.

I went to school in a non-religious school that was very much a religious area. Sex Ed was basically the scene in Mean Girls "If you have Sex you WILL GET PREGNANT and DIE"

well I've never seen an Ammendment happen in my lifetime so obviously it doesn't happen
The 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992
- 1992 was 32 years ago. Adults are 18. People born in 2006 are adults.
- The 27th amendment was sent to the states by the first congress allong with the 10 that would become known as the bill of rights. This group also included a still unratified amendment that would increase the size of the house of representatives based on population (as of the 2020 census, today's house would have about 6600 members).
  The way the 27th amendment got ratified is a truly inspiring story of political activism. It was largely forgotten about until 1982, when Gregory Watson wrote a paper arguing that 18th century proposal could still be ratified. This paper received a C in Watson's undergraduate political science class. This injustice led Watson to lead a 10 year campaign to ratify the amendment, which ultimately succeeded in 1992.
  This scandal was so big, that Watson's professor fled academia [0]. Eventually, Professor Waite was tracked down to her family's farm, and in 2017 submitted a grade change revising the paper to an A. Later that year, the Texas legislature passed a resolution on the subject:
  RESOLVED, That the 85th Legislature of the State of Texas hereby congratulate Gregory D. Watson on receiving a revised grade of A in his 1982 Government 310 class at The University of Texas at Austin
  Thus finally closing the chapter on one of this nation's most infamous grading disputes.
  [0] Historians dispute the fact thar Proffesor Waite's decision to leave Academia, which occured prior to the ratification of the 27th amendment, was in any way related to this.
it's not a political document, it's a holy text. you wouldnt alter the torah either, would you? :D
- And surely the Christian Bible would never be revised!
  shuffles 400 versions under the rug
- You joke but the founder of Conservapedia is working on his own English translation of the Bible that removes "liberal bias" (whatever the fuck that means).
- I mean, I have a few ideas for edits of the Torah.
Fun fact: More amendments went into place in the 1900s (12) than any other century (1700s: 11, 1800s: 4, 2000s: 0)
I'm surprised those people don't at least know about Prohibition if they're the types to throw around "liberal propaganda"
Transport buffer the bastards, O'Brien.
- Everyone knows you can't store people in a pattern buffer.
  Just ask any transporter chief...
  hand hovers ominously over panel

It needs to be called out just how weird it is that US Senators like this don’t understand the very document they have sworn to uphold.

The bar has been lowered so much that I wouldn't be surpised to learn that some of them couldn't even read.
- I don't think Diane Feinstein could really even comprehend anything at the end.
  We should be careful about language like "can't read," when discussing taking away rights though. There are blind people who literally "can't read," but can comprehend information in an equivalent format and who'd be much more competent than someone like Feinstein.
At this point I'm almost for requiring at least some sort of legal degree for these positions.
a LOT of the people most important to governing within the constitution, enforcing it, and specifically hired to protect your rights granted by it, know little, to nothing, about it

We are trying our best to vote this bitch out here in TN.

I hate her so bad
- Marsha Goddamned Motherfucking Blackburn.
  Stopped us expanding Medicare. In the pocket of the telecom companies. And all around, general, piece of shit.

But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

-Some stupid idiot who never read the Constitution, probably

You mean the US constitution wasn’t written by god and handed down by Jesus?

That's not Jesus. He's not brown enough.
- We're going for American Jesus.

Funny how the people who scream "you can't change the second amendment" seem to be perfectly OK with nationalizing Christianity...which would violate the first amendment

I've already read their mental gymnastics how America is a Christian country because blah blah blah. They specifically say that treaty that says it's not is a treaty and not part of the US something or other.
- What's really fun is that for a big chunk of them, the first three Presidents (at minimum) were not Christian by the definition a lot of them prefer. Washington was a deist. Adams and Jefferson both explicitly rejected the Trinity, which a lot of them hold as being central to the definition of Christianity. Also, Jefferson made his own bible translation that took out the parts he didn't like, and he wasn't coy about saying so.
- This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
  Article VI, US Constitution
That's because the first is the worst, but second if the best
- Heh my youngest kid (of two) tells his brother this all the time.
- Bronze: Austin Danger Powers (UK)
I'm not OK with either of those things, but I will tell you that the 2nd Amendment is here to stay. Read up on the process for amending the Constitution for reference. It only takes 13 states voting No to ratification to block it. A majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment, including VP Harris.

Gotta get rid of that 2nd Amendment then as well don't we?

You'd also not be able to own guns, or have freedom or religion or speech. Look up the meaning of Amendment why don't you.

States could also do whatever they wanted until the 14th Amendment incorporated the Constitution down to them. Yes, that does mean states could have all the gun control laws they want (pursuant to their own constitutions) until it was explicitly incorporated in 2010.

Eh, a rewrite is not the same as an edit.

If I start talking about rewriting our code base, I'm not asking to fix a big or add a new feature, I'm saying we need to scrap everything we've got and start again.

Thomas Jefferson argued that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.
- According to the math he laid out in that document, it would be a longer period today to account for the increased life expectancy. At the time, it was only assumed that the average life expectancy was 55 years. Google says it is now about 78, so the suggestion for today's world would be to rewrite the Constitution every 31 years or so.
  It makes sense. His logic is essentially that the Constitution is a contact that binds everyone in our society to a legal framework, but the rules were created for a specific time and people and binding future generations to the same rules would be the same as having a dead man continue to own all the property he aqcuired in life instead of having the ownership pass down to his descendants.

Literal Article V denialism. Almost like she's never read the document before.

you can point out their hypocrisy, it doesn't matter. you can make fun of them all you want, it doesn't matter. you can debate their ideas, it doesn't matter.
if you want to save the world, there's really only one solution.
- Save the cheerleader?
- I agree and disagree with that. If you don't point it out and tell them (and others) that they're wrong, then they go on doing it with zero pushback and it eventually becomes the truth.
  I completely understand what you're saying, and it's exhausting they just continue to shout over everyone, but nothing changes if no one does anything.
- you can point out their hypocrisy, it doesn’t matter.
  It matters quite a bit when you're talking about Presidential politics wrt an ongoing genocide.
  Jill's condemned Putin, which is what everyone wanted her to do. But we're not sending Putin our highest end military equipment for the purpose of killing Ukrainians now are we?
  Meanwhile, Hasan is bending over backwards to shield Biden and Netanyahu from accusations of a genocide we are facilitating.
  And that's his point. He's trying to get Jill to shut up about Gaza, because it's the rock Kamala is poised to trip over in November. If she loses the Muslim vote in swing states, she's cooked.
  Hasan needs Jill to recant her position on Israel in order to turn that protest vote against her. And you're playing into that delusion, because you're terrified she might actually manage to draw a Muslim protest vote in sufficient quantities to cost Democrats the election.
  That's the only reason anyone on her gives a shit about the Green Party.

Marsha Blackburn opposes the 2nd amendment.

Americans are so weird about the "constitution", like it's some sacred thing or some shit.

Yeah. Instead of looking at what makes sense today, they honour the wishes of some dead guys from hundreds of years ago.

Waiting for the chmod joke

congress@US:/govdocs/$ chmod 754 US_Constitution justices@US:/govdocs$ sudo chown justices:usg US_Constitution justices@US:/govdocs$ chmod 744 US_Constitution
- justices forgot the rules of sudo
  We trust you have received the usual lecture from the local Systems Administrator. It usually boils down to these two things:
  #1) Respect the privacy of others. #2) Think before you type.

There is a person here on Lemmy that seriously believes if you turn the constitution upside down it magically turns into Latin and has secret messages.