Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

P-W-L t1_isujph0 wrote

Reply to comment by Lallo-the-Long in More Same-Sex Couples Eligible for Survivor Benefits After VA Policy Change by EssoEssex

That's why for stuff that will be a new basis for all future laws to come you write them directly in the constitution.

1

Lallo-the-Long t1_isukytg wrote

The supreme court is responsible for interpreting the constitution. Including the part of the constitution that talks about the unlisted freedoms that are guaranteed to citizens. Which is the basis for things like obergefell, loving, and roe.

1

P-W-L t1_isun7je wrote

But if you want to make double sure a constitutional right is respected, nothing stops you from marking it black on white in the constitution, something even disagreeing Justices could not interprete how they want.

You can always change the constitution back if there is a true political change wanted, it's just much, much harder to do. (makes sense it's not supposed to evolve at every law)

1

Lallo-the-Long t1_isunprf wrote

Lots of things prevent that, namely, the inane restrictions on making constitutional amendments combined with the wildly contentious climate of the political parties. Besides, you just said that we should make the basis of every law a constitutional amendment and then now you're saying that it's not supposed to do that.

1

P-W-L t1_isuss48 wrote

What I meant is that constitutional amendments are a big deal as you said. It's stronger than any supreme court ruling they can turn around as they want a few years later.

1