Controversial policy cannot and should not become amendments. There is very little that everyone agrees that the government should do and the government is already very powerful. That's why constitutional amendments are so rare.
> Controversial policy cannot and should not become amendments.
The problem with making the Constitution hard to amend as the means of preventing that is that it stops new constitutional provisions that are controversial from being added, but it doesn’t prevent old constitutional provisions that are controversial among the people currently governed by them from remaining. This is why Jefferson thought that laws, including constitutions, needed to automatically sunset to prevent the living being ruled from beyond the grave by the dead.
Absolutely! The constitution by its nature should dictate things that the overwhelming majority of people agree on, not the usual fifty percent plus one person slim margin that a lot of controversial policies end up being.
You are right, though of course no single person is the authority on what the ultimate moral truth is, so this is perhaps a non-operative statement when it comes to governance.
> Absolutely! The constitution by its nature should dictate things that the overwhelming majority of people agree on, not the usual fifty percent plus one person slim margin that a lot of controversial policies end up being.
You'd be surprised with how little people agreed with the Bill of Rights then and even now.
