In the original Jumanji movie, the first two players were trapped inside the game for years until two later players began playing.
For the purpose of this conversation, I am not interested in particular policy issues, just in the constitutional structure.
First, should proposed Amendments to the US constitution have time limits for ratification or should they stay in play for decades until ratified?
Second, should time limits first implemented be able years later to be removed without the consent of the states.
Third, if Time limits can be removed then can a state remove its ratification.
When the US was first created, Amendments were proposed without time limits.
Later, the laws proposing Amendments were enacted with time limits built in to the enactment bill.
This practice was challenged in Court and SCOTUS upheld Congress's right to set time limits in 1939.
In 1992, an amendment first proposed by Congress in 1789 met the ratification requirements. It was the first time that an amendment which was ratified was ratified in more than four years. All other ratified amendments except one had been ratified in under three years. The sixteenth amendment was the only ratified Amendment prior to 1992 that had taken more than three years and it was ratified in under four years.
There is a movement underway to remove the time limit from an amendment which failed to pass within the time specified within its enactment law. Until recently, the reintroduction of a previously failed amendment was assumed to have required each state to vote again on the subject of ratification. But those who are seeking to revive an expired Amendment want to start with the states which ratified it bound to their previous legislatures's votes.
But if they can revive what initially expired then should not their opponents have the right to do the opposite and rescind prior votes?
It doesn't really matter in the long run which amendment this is because if this is allowed for this expired Amendment then it applies to ALL expired amendments both now and in the future.
I am less concerned with policy than I am with structure. If we break down all structure in pursuit of policy pretty soon we will no longer have a constitution.
Similarly, there are some who are seeking to abolish the need for amendments by arguing that five justices can change the constitution without the states or the people having any say in the matter. This oligarchial approach to the Constitution is called "the living constitution" theory.
Whatever one party can do, the other can also. Setting this kind of precedent which can be used in an opposite manner is suicidal. We are now at a point in which there are more justices which tend to issue decisions which are seen as "conservative". If the living constitution theory is correct then the "conservative majority" can change the constitution, but if it is false then all of those who advocated this theory when there was a liberal majority were harming the American republic. They set the precedent. I viewed the living Constition theory as false and harmful in 2016 and I still view it as false today.