Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>> amendment is the better way to go.
> 
>   Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
> 
>   "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
> in the first place?
> 

I didn't say it was a good thing. But, as long as the document is
amendable and the government wants it's agenda promoted over another,
they will find a way to do this.

There is also the issue of the state, and it's population's, view of how
their state constitution interacts with the federal constitution. In the
USA, some of the states that existed before the Civil War tend to view
that their constitution are on equal ground with the federal one, while
the federal constitution overrides state law, by way of the 14th
amendment. Others have the constitution as the bulk of their law.

Moot? *shrug* It depends on what your view of the total meaning of the
constitution is. Some states disagree with you, and feel that all their
laws should be backed by the constitution. And since changing even the
state constitution is harder than changing state laws, the populous of
those states apparently agreed.

Democracy in action.

Post a reply to this message