>be Founding Fathers>supposed to be smart and forward looking a shit>doesn't know what inflation is
>>18410574This might be an urban legend, I encourage somebody to correct me: The founding fathers wanted the constitution to be re-written every 20-30 years or so, so that it would evolve with the times and "serve the living people". For whatever reason (?Jews?) that didn't happen.
>>18410581Thomas Jefferson was writing a new constitution with even more liberty and freedom, but he got distracted because he was horny and went to rape his slave instead
>>18410574They were well aware of what inflation was anon. The British themselves even attempted to wage economic warfare during the American Revolution by flooding the market with counterfeit English and Spanish currency in an attempt at causing inflation amongst the Colonies. It's pretty reasonable to assume that the 20 dollar figure was meant to keep up with inflation
>>18410581Well they got what they wanted, the 14th was practically a new constitution, and then the CRA too
>>18410605>It's pretty reasonable to assume that the 20 dollar figure was meant to keep up with inflation? How does this work in your mind?
>>18410574Our amazing founding fathers also were apparently super racist and had the bright idea to put all of the explicitly racist founding ideas into changeable legislation only while writing an extremely ambiguous piece of shit document that could be interpreted in the most destructive way possible on any immigration or segregation issue. Great thinking
>>18410621The same way it works in real life, in other words the court considers the 1791 equivalent of $20 dollars, rather than treating this value as an absolute. It's interpreted as being about purchasing power basically. It's not that hard to understand
>Being smart in 1776 was knowing how to read and basic shit about classics, Adam fucking Smith was groundbreaking political scienceThey were midwits who sniffed their own farts and talked about how great they were.
OP is a seething Bong. King George was a dysgenic retard by the way, enjoy your cardboard burger king crowns ya damn Tories
>>18410623That is written nowhere in the constitution and is a completely random principle that the court can in no way be expected to follow
>>18410630It's the Courts job to interpret the constitution anon, that's why they exist.
>>18410632Yes they interpret the constitution not random internet poster's external headcanon, the constitution says 20 dollars so 20 dollars it is, 20 dollars 300 years ago are as relevant to this as 20 Singaporean dollars
>>18410627Freedom is when the psychopathic anglo intelligentsia is replaced with the racial cuckhold fetish intelligentsia or whatever
>>18410634This isn't my headcanon, it's literally how the Amendment is interpreted in real life lmao, stay seething though, dumbass
>>18410630You would be surprised how little constitutional interpretation involves reading what is written in the constitution.
>>18410637I suppose it is much like religion in that way
>>18410638The problem with textualism is that it gets you some genuinely retarded outcomes by interpreting certain passages too literally, but it's not a huge deal if it was done consistently. The bigger problem is that it was obviously intended to be updated fairly regularly and now is treated as some quasi-religious sacred text that is arbitrated by increasingly dumber and dumber supreme court justices who just read whatever makes them feel good that day into it.
>>18410641At the end of the day though someone is going to have to either judge how a law is meant to be read or revise existing law through further legislation, whether there's a constitution or not
>>18410581Day 1 of any civics/US gov. class will teach you an important term called "living document" when referring to the Constitution. Look it up
>>18410716“living document” is just kikespeak for “we will bend the law as we see fit”
>>18410581This sounds great until you realize autistic attachment to the constitution is the only reason Americans haven't had 99% of their rights stripped from them
>>18410782They have, "American" was just redefined to make it seems like they haven't.
>>18410782conversely, dogmatic adherence to a document that was created to serve a group of people who are all long dead would become equally oppressive. The Founding fathers knew this, which is why they created Article 5.
>>18410982And yet they still have more rights than most placest. From a country with no free speech or right to bear arms
>>18410574>doesn't know what inflation isIts a sad testament to how retarded you people are that you think inflation is an unavoidable inevitability.
>>18410621>How does this work in your mind?NTA but the definition of a dollar back then was a quantity of silver (0.7 oz iirc) which has in fact kept its value.if the founding fathers wrote everyone gets an acre of land, then 200 years later jews redefine an acre to mean one square foot, that isnt the founding fathers fault.
>>18410581The basic text of it is mostly fine, perhaps some things need to be reworded to be less vague. for example the commerce clause should read "There shall be freedom of movement and goods between the states. No state shall embargo, tax, or proscribe the residents of another state." and "All regulation of public health, safety, and working conditions is hereby left to the states." (this last is important to curb a known abuse of the commerce clause) I would also delete the general welfare clause as it's extensively abused. It was supposed to just be a summary of Congress's functions not an actual power granted.
>>18411290The "basic text" doesn't even establish judicial review and has led to nine individuals selectively deciding issues based on what their handlers say is acceptable. The number one issue from which all else follows which needs to be addressed is to bury Marbury v Maddison into the dirt so that justices can't pick and choose.
>>1841057420 dollars then is 743 dollars today and nobody is paying the legal fees to take a lawsuit over 743 dollars to federal court
>>18411290we also really don't need the XIX Amendment
They didn't expect amending the constitution would be as rare and difficult as it ended up being. The US was very explicitly founded to be a bourgeois republic where only the property owning class would have political power so they thought that the vast majority of issues that came up would be pretty easily solved though consensus since the electorate shared the same fundamental interests. This didn't really work out even in their day, even less so now with a (much more) universal electorate.
>>18411624actually they did intend it to be pretty hard to amend since amendments have to be passed by Congress plus 3/4ths of the states to pass
>>18411640Harder than a regular law, but not virtually impossible like it is now. The constitution as it is written is totally dysfunctional and riddled with veto points and ultra high voting thresholds for a modern administrative state with a pluralistic electorate which is why the legislature has ceded so much power to the executive and the judicial branches.
>>18411640>>18411648The whole game is pretending the system is dysfunctional on reforms that harm the status quo when in reality they can always find the votes needed from the real power holders in congress for stuff that the people that actually matter want.
>>18410574$20 was basically nothing even when this was enacted, it just exists to say the dispute must have some actual monetary value above a true token amount, even a small one.Like for instance it is a common law tort to trespass on someone else's land. They can sue you over it. Generally the tort of trespass just exists so if someone builds something on your land without your permission and refuses to take it down, or they damage your land by doing it you can sue them to get a court order to remove it or pay for the damage to your land. But if someone comes onto your land without permission, you order them to leave, and they do, you were still legally harmed by the trespass and if you really wanted to you could take them to court for damages. The value of the damages would be considered "token" since you were not harmed in any quantifiable way, so the award would be set at $1.I read the 7th amendment as saying that actions like that are not entitled to a federal jury.
>>18411648it was always that way since the early decades of the nation, Congressmen were conscious of how any vote they made could be used against them at election time
>>18411809>$20 was basically nothing even when this was enactedIIRC it's about $500 today which isn't much but it surely isn't a trivial amount either when it comes to settling court cases. It's also the absolute minimum bound anyways so you shouldn't even really expect it to be all that much relatively speaking
>The constitution was supposed to be revised every year or somethingWhoever says this is a retard. If the constitution was meant to have constant revision, we would have no need for legislation beyond it. Because we do have legislative measures beyond the constitution, it's fair to say that no, it was not meant to be revised all the time.
>>18411827$500 is absolutely a trivial amount that is not worth the time and expense of a lawsuit, at least not a full legal proceeding with a jury.If someone's such a deadbeat that you have to sue them over $500 do you really think they're going to pay just because you have a piece of paper signed by a judge that says they owe you? And if they aren't such a complete deadbeat that they've organized their entire life around hiding assets, you'd have to get a lien on their property and go get a marshal to seize and sell it for you, and they will demand a fee for doing this. By that point there will be nothing left for all this effort other than the satisfaction of having that paper, for what that's worth.Oh and btw, I have a piece of paper in my desk that says my former landlord owes me $3500 that took me years to get. It's completely worthless. Never saw a cent off it, even wasted hundreds of dollars on collections. At least I won my first case when I was in law school, I guess.
>>18411839Most disputes of such amounts wouldn't be settled by Jury anyways even if the parties involved have the right to do so, so I don't really see what difference it makes. Just because it sets a minimum bound doesn't mean you're forced to settling it in a jury court over a small claims court
>>18411845small claims court as we think of it didn't exist until the 1930s, and it took a couple decades to be adopted everywhere
