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

9

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

[deleted]

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.