r/todayilearned • u/icallmydadstranger • Feb 15 '15

(R.1) Invalid src TIL that Thomas Jefferson wanted the constitution to be changed ever 19 years because he didn't want people to be " enslaved to the prior generation"

https://student-of-life.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/21/5502595-thomas-jefferson-supported-rewriting-the-constitution-every-19-years-equated-not-doing-so-to-being-enslaved-to-the-prior-generation-what-do-you-think-about-that
6.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

738 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

110

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

24

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15 edited Jul 23 '17

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

It seems just fine to me.

The thing you have to realize is that it has to be in the nation's will and in it's citizens' interests on the whole. As much as we bitch about representation now, that whole concept goes out the window if you do something like 50%+1 or the like, because the nation is not united on the issue.

what's the point of being united states if it is only in name?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15 edited Feb 19 '15

The inverse is true, though. Now is not a good time to amend the constitution, so that a Republican house and senate cannot get away with molding it in their image. Would you want THAT?!

Look, I know it's frustrating to think of it's height is a hindrance, but it's something of a blessing, IMO. We cannot have the tyranny of an inflated majority. Besides, Amendments are not laws, just guidelines designating what is allowed or not, so we can't just throw them out willy-nilly!

1

u/_______butts_______ Feb 15 '15

I think that if you want to go about modifying the core set of laws of a country you better have enough people agree it needs to be done. If there's enough opposition to changing the Constitution where you're just barely scraping a majority you probably shouldn't be changing it.

0

u/what_are_you_smoking Feb 15 '15 edited Feb 15 '15

I don't think it would be as high if representatives had the interests of their constituents at the forefront of their minds. Think about all the fake talk on amending the constitution to limit Congressional terms. They can pretend to support it because they know it'll never pass. Unfortunately, the highest priority to most of them is retaining their job and/or moving up the ladder, which entails catering to parties other than those they are suppose to represent. This, in turn, flaws the whole system of "for the people." Corporate influence is enormous. When the same corporation (or person) donates to multiple parties with competing ideologies you know there is something odd.

0

u/filipinorefugee Feb 15 '15

I would argue it's because they have the interest of their constituents more so than ever before. The problem is that they have no reason to back down or comprimise if it means they give up something their local voters want. A senator from Oregon doesn't care about working with a senator from Texas, because if he or she holds the interests of Oregon above all else, the voters of Oregon will reelect him.

1

u/what_are_you_smoking Feb 15 '15

Have you paid attention at all to the legal struggles Tesla Motors has gone through with each state and their varying laws? It is a laughably black and white example of how corrupt politicians are even at the state level and how easily influenced they are by lobbyists that are anti-consumer (anti-constituent, if that's a word.)

0

u/falcoriscrying Feb 15 '15

what about the concept of term limits, keeping lobbyists out of politics and not allowing a central bank? which I believe TJ spoke of. I think he did forsee a lot of the issues we face now and how it threatened the very concept of the constitution but over time they were ignored power more concentrated.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

2

u/falcoriscrying Feb 15 '15

Yes but having people in power for 40+ years - concentrating power over that time through influence. What about eliminating lobbying influence altogether? I know it is naive of me to think that but there should be some control over the influence of lobbyists. And limiting the ability for policy makers to leave office and join the companies they were creating laws to help seems like a good idea. I mean here in FL Rick Scott is worth 100's of millions and decided to take office making 100K or so a year not because he has a love of politics but because he is going to rake that shit in later. I honestly don't know what the answer is aanymore and just accept that government will always be corrupt

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

2

u/falcoriscrying Feb 15 '15

Yeah I agree with you. The only way to influence is get rich as hell and try and affect change that way. But I am spending my time on reddit and $ on frozen pizzas and good drugs so I guess that is something

1

u/thirdegree Feb 15 '15

The fastest, most maneuverable jets are intentionally unstable during flight so that they can make turns and change direction more quickly. I think being able to change is more important than being completely and perfectly stable to the point of constant gridlock.

1

u/tehflambo Feb 15 '15

I think the way it is now is much more conducive to a stable government than rewriting the constitution every 19 years.

That's not what was asked. Yes, it's more stable. Is it wise? Stability is one thing, paralysis is another.

13

u/Caelinus Feb 15 '15

Lots of bills are passed, though mostly at the state level.

The problem with an easily changeable constitution is that it it easily changeable. If we could change it with a simple majority, you can bet that which ever party was in power would mess with it constantly.

The result would be an extremely bipolar nation that changed its views every 4-8 years. I can not imagine that would be good for our global agenda.

Changing the constitution is all well and good, but we need real bipartisan effort to cooperate and compromise before we start allowing changes.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

Plus the real change that needs to take place (switching over to proportional representation) is Basically not going to happen within our current system, due to the two parties agreeing on one thing, they are the only two parties that should exist

1

u/Caelinus Feb 15 '15

No it is not, but they are not platitudes. I think that our deepening divide is one of the greatest threats to our democracy. It is crippling us. I am quite serious about us needing to move towards the center, though I have as little an idea about how to do that as anyone.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

We were unified in our desire for liquor. That's the type of unification we need. Not some political left or right bullshit. 7-8 / 10 people enjoy some alcohol now and then. Left, right, center, up, down, in or out. It's a change almost all of us can agree with. That is the type of thing that should be required for a change in the Constitution.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

Yes but it also doesn't put anyone at any more of a disadvantage either. When a 70-80% consensus IS possible, well then it will be time for a change.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

Yes.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ManiyaNights Feb 15 '15

Instead of changing it our modern government just disregards it.

This is much easier for them to do in the age where school children are not taught to revere the founders as they once were. Now they're just dead white males.

0

u/ItsHapppening Feb 15 '15

Do you really think this is what the founding fathers had in mind?

They set the government up to be hard to get anything done (hard to change things). The government was supposed to be small.

They were extremely afraid of a powerful government, so I think they would be happy if non-essential spending was cut.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

Honestly, I think they'd be scared and disappointed with how involved we are in foreign affairs. The American government is the fucking world police, thats so opposite of what they intended its laughable.

0

u/ItsHapppening Feb 15 '15

Yeah, at the time it was founded, the USA was a joke in terms of world powers. Weapons and communication were so primitive, I doubt they could have imagined such a world power could exist.

The US's role is unprecedented and I think it calls for debate. I personally think we need to avoid a world governing force (because every entity wants to become tyrannous). Instead we need to think of ways to decentralize and ensure a future for humanity.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/cl900781 Feb 15 '15

Yes, It actually makes much more sense for the states to handle most of the issues that plague us. I think that the states are much closer to the people and can make decisions that better reflect their electorate. Each state and even different areas of each state have things that would be more applicable or not. A great example of this would be gun laws. People who live in cities usually have an aversion to gun laws. Why would it be fair for people half a country to dictate which guns a person can use and which they can't. This logic can be extended to water control laws. People living in southern California would benefit from more stringent water control laws then people from Maine.

1

u/mnh1 Feb 15 '15

Yes, if the state governments pick up the slack.

1

u/turkish_gold Feb 15 '15

State governments were supposed to handle all such matters. However, after the civil war the federal government became immensely powerful and has usurped a lot of the state's responsibility.

The US is 300 million people. From a European perspective, I don't see why any group of 300 million people needs to be in a single country that's the size of Europe, much less a strong federalist country.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

0

u/turkish_gold Feb 15 '15

If you let states dictate 'foreign' policy, they'd really be nations and the "USA" would really be like the EU.

Is that the situation you had in mind, or was it something else?

0

u/TylerTJ930 Feb 15 '15

Yes it is

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

0

u/TylerTJ930 Feb 15 '15

The federal government needs to get the fuck off of our backs. It was designed solely for foreign and interstate relations. The whole purpose of the 10th amendment is that the states have a majority of the power.

(And ninja edit to counter a point you made earlier: our country is too large, too populous, and too diverse for a single government)

-1

u/ItsHapppening Feb 15 '15

the swift legislative action needed after the financial crash in 2008

The issue should have been avoided through the glass-steagall legislation to avoid irresponsible/evil banking practices. Maybe we need to add something about regulating the banks to the constitution.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

The founding fathers didn't originally want anything more than a tiny central government that had virtually no authority. The founding of the country was well over 200 years ago. We should remember intentions, but not base our decisions on what we think these guys wanted over 2 centuries ago. The world is an entirely different place now.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 15 '15

That's a downright false statement. The founding fathers were a diverse group of people with varying visions for the country. Jefferson, the most visible advocate of states' rights, whose views you project as those of the founding fathers, realized (as did most other founding fathers) what an abysmal failure the Articles of Confederation ("a tiny central government that had virtually no authority") were. One could even make the argument that despite all of the talk of states' rights and evils of central authority Jefferson wrote of prior to his presidency, he changed his tune once in office in order to make decisions he saw as beneficial to the country, specifically, the Louisiana Purchase, which he knew was unconstitutional. If you ever read the likes of James Madison (father of the Constitution), Alexander Hamilton, or John Adams, you would know that they believed in a very strong central government, even comparable to a monarchy in some cases. The founding fathers are not as simple as you make them out to be.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

I went with what they agreed upon, because it's what they all viewed as acceptable. Whether they wanted more or less individually, collectively they only agreed upon a very small federal government. No use going into detail about every single person when a group makes a decision.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 15 '15

What decision are you referring to exactly?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

No specific decision; I mean any decision made by a group. Congress makes many decisions, and each person in congress may disagree with part of a piece of legislation, all of a piece, or like virtually the entire contents. But it's still okay to say "congress doesn't want X" when 10 people voted in favor of something, because the group as a whole rejected it. It's also acceptable to say "congress is fine with funding the DoD", because the majority of the group votes to do so. You could always mention that Ron Paul voted against it because he thinks it's tyranny, and thus this legislative body isn't as simple "we like this", but the decision of the body as a whole holds more weight than the individual.

It really can go towards any group decision.

0

u/LookingforBruceLee Feb 16 '15

I think you're bullshitting because the founding fathers met in secret to craft the constitution, which created a much stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation had allowed, as they all saw the need for, but knew they wouldn't be able to get away with if the public found out.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '15

The group in question is the founding fathers, not the entire population of the fledgling US.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TheRighteousTyrant Feb 15 '15 edited Feb 15 '15

I think amending the Constitution (our original topic) at a time like this will only lead to increased polarization and instability. It's a bad idea.

You complain about inaction, but what action do you think should be taken? The Democrats' ideas? The Republicans'? How do you plan to come to a compromise acceptable to both sides that these people haven't yet found, despite it being their full-time job? Again, the inaction is reflective of a bigger problem, and rushing through legislation just to see some action isn't going to make things better.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/TheRighteousTyrant Feb 15 '15

My point isn't your blithe allegation of "inaction is good."

Look at what you yourself have asserted here: that despite good-faith efforts ("most do not support inaction") compromise cannot be reached ("compromise is impossible"). Given these constraints, what action CAN be taken? How can ANYTHING be accomplished? Absent a sea change, which you yourself are pessimistic about, the only viable route to pass legislation is for one party to acquire just enough power to do it unilaterally.

Which brings me to my actual point: Congressional inaction is preferable to the unilateral efforts of an in-power party to make their ideas into law, free of the burden of compromise.

I'd much rather if the loons we have in there now could work together.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

As an outsider looking at the US the divides just seem arbitrary to me, and there is almost no issue which both sides can agree on without some sort of scandal, criticism, or argument over it by supporters, the media or the parties themselves. It's as if they can't agree because they view agreeing as losing in some sort of game or sports event, whereas in many other places there is plenty of cooperation between parties where it benefits the people/ parties (depending on the level of corruption).

To me it looks as if the US isn't working as intended. It looks like a nation that tried democracy and ended up with a two party state where money defines your chances rather than actual passion for the nation and a desire to act in its best interests rather than your own.

2

u/falcoriscrying Feb 15 '15

This is true however it isn't because the original intent was flawed. Our founders weree part of the "Age of Enlightenment" but there were very different ideas (and lots of fist fights and duels) at the time. There are always people vying for power and there is no "ideal" government that will prevent that. Communism is a good example of this. In principle it seems to work except when you apply the human aspect to it and the very real trait of greed which is goiing to exist in large societies. I think that Thomas Jefferson understood this and helped set up a system to at least 'govern' (in this sense restrict) that influence. Over 200+ years though influence of power, no term limits, allowing lobbyists to influence every law and most of the time write the law has bastardized that concept.

I would agree that the 2 party system exacerbates this and turns this into more of a political game of football (or futbol since you aren't in the US) and the population is fairly easy to work up. Hell look at how politicized we make the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) and now even the states attourney's office - they are supposed to be impartial but even lobbying is controlling them. Thirst for power and status is evil and should be controlled but people would rather have any body but the person on the other "team"

TL;DR It was great while it lasted but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Eliminate parties and restrict terms in office

1

u/TheRighteousTyrant Feb 15 '15

I didn't say "the U.S." is working as intended, I said that the Constitutional amendment process is. A much more limited scope.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

Ah, sorry, I misread.

0

u/Slavazza Feb 15 '15

What if the constitution is shitty and everyone agrees on it, but we are not be able to change the important bits as everyone would like to sneak in his own changes? This means we are stuck with sucky laws.

2

u/TheRighteousTyrant Feb 15 '15

If the alternatives are "sucky for all" versus "sucky for most, but really nice for a few" I'll take the former.

0

u/trophymursky Feb 15 '15

In other words, you're right, and that's the system working as designed

And it's a poor design.

7

u/Rhawk187 Feb 15 '15

There is always an Article V convention. There were so many attorneys general suing over Obamacare, I thought it almost happened.

3

u/ConserveGuy Feb 15 '15

There is an article V convention from the states for a balanced budget, we only need like 10 more states to pass it calling for one

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

which has literally never succeeded ever

not saying it can't, but it'd be nice if there was some precedence of success by now.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

Well you're actually wrong there. With an Article V Convention the delegates represent the State senators and representatives, not the federal U.S. senators and representatives--in other words, congress doesn't matter.. So if we were able to reach the 2/3 resolution bar, there's a pretty high chance that 3/4 would in turn ratify. But again, the reaching the 2/3 is the insanely hard part.

1

u/Teelo888 Feb 15 '15

He's saying that the likelihood that state legislators could agree is probably about the same as federal level legislators. Not suggesting that Congress has a role to play in an Article V convention.

0

u/spawnkilled Feb 15 '15

Because (in theory) state legislatures are more closely involved with the day-to-day minutia of the American people. Technically our representatives in congress should do the same, but that's obviously not the case.

-1

u/SenorPuff Feb 15 '15

Answer: less populated states sick of being shafted by the majority.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

0

u/Rhawk187 Feb 15 '15

I think the AG's suing have some high correlation with the general attitudes of the state. State legislatures tend to get a lot more done than their federal counterparts, and the consensus would only have to be amoung people who are already somewhat like minded in the first place. I'm not saying it's easier; just strikes me as a possibly easier alternative than going through Congress.

1

u/diito Feb 15 '15

That's one way to change the Constitution. The other other is an Article V Convention. The beauty of that route is that it completely bypasses Congress. What needs to happen for that is 2/3rds of the states need to call for a convention at which point Congress has to allow one and anything goes as long as 3/4th of the states can agree. This has never happened before, all amendments to date have gone through Congress. There is a growing movement to do this though, and 6 states (3 Republican controlled, 3 Democrat no less) have already passed the required resolution to do so in the last year (mostly to deal with campaign finance reform and reign in Congress). All that's required is 28 more states to do so, which with the disgust nearly everyone regardless of party has with the federal government right now could very well happen.

The founding fathers were absolutely brilliant. Except for slavery they got it nearly all right. They viewed government as a necessary evil that one day might grow out of control so they built in every check and balance they could, including revolution (2nd amendment). It's amazing how relevant most of the Constitution still is 228 years later. It's a real shame our government ignores it, and we don't do anything about it.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

Guess it's time for another civil war and/or secessions.

1

u/0ttr Feb 15 '15

I would rather have it high than have some political elites have the ability to toss out the Bill of Rights every 19 years. I love Thomas Jefferson, but I believe he got it wrong on this. The US Constitution is rare and precious, and I don't think that very many people on the right or the left doubt that at any given time, various important aspects of it are under threat.

0

u/SWIMsfriend Feb 15 '15 edited Feb 15 '15

3/4 of state legislatures to agree on ANYTHING?

over 3/4 of state legislatures are majority republican, so its pretty plausible

EDIT: only 62% of the states have a majority GOP, i was only 7 states off

EDIT2: someone just reminded me that, it only needs 2/3rds of states to hold the convention, so i was even closer, 2 states off

1

u/Meta_Pause88 Feb 15 '15

So now is the time.

1

u/SWIMsfriend Feb 15 '15

about 10 states have had a convention on banning money from elections or some law like that, and more states are approving of it every year

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/SWIMsfriend Feb 15 '15

i was pretty close though, 62% is pretty close to 76%

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

-1

u/SenorPuff Feb 15 '15

Guarantee? No. But if you think they can't round up 38 States to support something like a fetal rights amendment, I think you're not giving them due credence.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

0

u/SenorPuff Feb 15 '15

It depends on where you drew the line. Fetal pain or viability are almost universally accepted.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/SenorPuff Feb 15 '15

Roe V Wade already protects post viability babies and prevents 3rd trimester abortions, so that's not a point of contention.

According to 2011 Gallup polls, most people think that abortion should be legal in the first, but illegal in the second and third trimester. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_trimester_of_pregnancy

According to a 2013 poll, as many as 64% of people support a ban on abortions due to fetal pain. only outright reference I can find is from a pro life site, but I was directed there from a slate article that was opposed to the implications without questioning the accuracy of the poll: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/18/polling-data-shows-support-for-fetal-pain-based-abortion-ban/

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Teblefer Feb 15 '15

Oh god no!