Hacker News Reader

while it's certainly biased by the thinking of the time, that stuff isn't enshrined in the constitution, not to that degree. the wealthy white dude framers knew they weren't perfect, so they allowed for changes by providing an amendment process to patch the rough spots. the constitution is a good start, not the final endpoint.

View on HN

Like I said, the updating process is so onerous that women aren't considered equals under the constitution decades after women are obligated to pay taxes, have the right to vote, and other such things. I don't understand why it should be considered a good set of first principles because of this, because it would imply that the equalness of people isn't a first principle.

i mean, do you really believe that today, women are not considered equal, even if it's not perfectly spelled out by the constitution? more importantly, does that matter for using the constitution as a starting point? it doesn't have to be the constitution by the way; that was simply a convenient and relevant example of a starting point.

>Like I said, the updating process is so onerous that women aren't considered equals under the constitution

Mind pointing out where exactly in the current, live form of the constitution where women are not considered equal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com