This might sound stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to write a constitution with an expiration date?
Something like "every 30-50-100 years the constitution should be rewritten from scratch, in agreement between all parties currently existing", as a way to make certain the document doesn't become outdated and actually represents the current views on ethics, morals and/or political views?
Basically a way to allow things to change without the need for revolutions/civil wars and to combat political inertia.
I recently read an article that made some good points about reasons for every law to come with an expiration date, and i thought " why don't we take it to the logical extreme?
@PoptartProdigy would that be possibile?
While searching I also found this
Thomas Jefferson believed that a country's constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.
"Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world," said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois.
...very possible! I also see this garnering a fair amount of discussion. Can you all work out an agreement on a final version to support, and tag me with it?
So, anyone interested into defining this idea a bit more?
We could go with something similar to the hawaii constitutional convention, so (if i understood correctly) a referendum every x (10 for hawaii apparently) years, and if a majority says yes revisions and/or amendments can be proposed (i admit i don't know the details of the procedure).
Or we could go with a more direct "after x years (i say 30, but we could choose a different number of years)) the constitution expires. A new constituent assembly must be formed and a new constitution written (nothing stops the previous constitution from being proposed again if everyone/most people agree there is no need for a change at that time, but it allows for relatively frequent chances to "modernize" the basic document upon which the whole system is based, giving a way to counteract the "political inertia" some talked before.
We could even go beyond that, and make it so that EVERY law has an expiration date, so that there is no risk of "outdated laws", and giving the system more flexibility in the face of the many changes the political situation in North America (and the rest of the world) will go trough. It also works as a promise to every territory/state that joins us, that once its time they'll have a voice in how everything is updated and that no, they won't be forced to accept constitution and document we come with until the next Victoria tears us up from the inside.
All these possibilities should work with all the various "ideals" options, and could in some way mitigate the severity of the "Crush" options (after all they give a chance (and hope) to the other parties to change even the central tenets of the constitution if they have enough support at the time of the revision/rewrite..
Now, I'm not really an expert..Or even an american really, so... any true americans wants to propose something more detailed? Any opinions at all?
P.S. THIS is the one true PIZZA NAPOLETANA. All others are fake
1.
1 This is only the opinion of SOME neapolitans. Most Italians disagree, and will happily eat Pizzas with many more toppings (though not as ridiculous as you Americans (or god forbids, Japanese!)
(And please stop citing Jefferson as if he's the be-all, end-all of nation-building.)
I only cited him because it sounded interesting. Honestly i think you americans think a bit too highly of your founding fathers, in the same way most italians think too highly of, say, Garibaldi (usually described as the "hero" who joined The various Italian Kingdoms into one). After all these kind of historical figures tend to be romanticized a lot.
30 years seems like a reasonable interval to me, I guess? I mean, I agree with the underlying reasoning (one per generation is a solid heuristic, 20 sounds probably too short) & don't have particular ideas for a better timing so I'd be fine with that one.
(of course I speak only for myself here but that's my 2 cents on the matter)
Final agreement for the expiration date. Can we agree to constitutional review every 30 years?
I'd rather not go any longer than that, there should be one every generation at least, but twenty years seems too few.
For those who missed this discussion, we were talking about having scheduled constitutional conventions to re-examine the assumptions of the constitution for the needs of each generation, so that errors aren't left to snowball for centuries.
It wouldn't necessarily be a complete an overhaul, more an editing. Unless some shit really went down of course.
30 can work for me. Maybe 25. I think longer than that wouldn't be good enough, and if the country is stable nothing stops the parties to mantain the old constitution with just some slight adjustments.
