Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlgaddis | Hacker News Reader

My big worry, if we allow The Second Amendment to be rewritten and/or re-interpreted (to "modernize") it, is that a precedent is set -- it will then be much easier to allow any of the other amendments to be rewritten and/or reinterpreted to align with the beliefs of those who are currently in power.

View on HN

I don't see a problem with "modernization". Constitutional documents should be living documents, tuned for clarity and for the times. Of course, such changes should not simply be a matter of passing a new bill. There should be significant political hurdles involved.

Keeping the constitution open to changes seems to be an OK idea. India has had 100 amendments to the constitution since just 1950 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Cons... .

That ship's already sailed. We already depend on the scotus to "fill in the details" in deciding & applying the intent of the constitution & bill of rights. Hell, we've already struck down amendments in their entirety (think Prohibition).

This is a task they're already well equipped for, well practiced in, and pretty much designed for.

(And I believe it was always meant to be this way. The wisest idea "the founding fathers" left us with, was that of amendments - that none of this was carved in stone, nor should it be, nor could be.)

Prohibition (the Volstead Act) was "struck down" by the formal Constitutional Amendment process, not by the courts or by statute process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com