LilB0kChoy

There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman's right to choose. Your example of Roe literally demonstrates the point.

Does that source explain how they'll circumvent Posse Comitatus?

Right, and who is in control of Congress right now?

100 Senators and 435 Representatives.

Any amendments they've brought up lately?

First sentence of your article, "A Republican Representative has claimed that a proposed amendment to the Constitution to allow presidents to serve more than two terms has "a lot of support" among GOP colleagues."

I bet they make that claim; might even be true. Do they all? Does 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of Congress? Do 38 state legislatures support it?

First you accuse me of somehow arguing to make constitutional amendments easier, which I haven't. Then you provide an article where a GOP Representative has claimed something and act like all the additional hurdles of making a constitutional amendment don't exist.

I'm done with this argument. There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman's right to choose. Your example of Roe literally demonstrates the point.

State ≠ Federal

The harder it is to do, the harder it is to undo. That's why you enshrine it in law or a constitutional amendment.

When you don't then (currently) 5 people can decide to completely change decades of accepted practice.

I'm not sure how to explain it any simpler.

Same-sex marriage is a better example because there's been rumblings from the SCOTUS about revisiting Obergefell however, with the Respect for Marriage Act passed under Biden, same-sex marriage is protected by law. Revisiting Obergefell won't change that; it would require Congress.

the government should definitely not be given easier access to make amendments to the constitution.

Do you understand how government and law works in the US?

Case precedent, as demonstrated with Roe, can be overruled by a majority of SCOTUS.

A law goes through the house, senate and then is signed by the President and becomes law.

A US Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote in the house and senate and then 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify.

Each one of those offer greater security of whatever issue is at hand.

Nothing I said makes it easier to amend the conversation but relying on case precedent is the same as relying on a "verbal" contract.

Same sex marriage came later.

Which means Americans had that much longer to enshrine a woman's right to choose in law and didn't.

That is my whole point. Relying on a "historical interpretation" was always a mistake.

If you make it law then it has some measure of permanence. Better if you can get a constitutional amendment passed.

I didn't read all of your wall of text but Roe v. Wade is a bad example. The American people should have never relied on case law precedent and should have pushed to enshrine the protections in law.

Same-sex marriage is a better example as it is protected by case law precedent in Obergefell but has also been enshrined in law through the Respect for Marriage Act.

I thought the trailer park is where they live currently because the house burned down. I think in Tristan's post it was mentioned the the house was left to Joss by a grandparent.