I keep hearing the argument that some things are constitutional while other things are not. The idea is that we should be in favor of all the things that were decided over 200 years ago by a bunch of slave-owning cross-dressers who pooped in holes. (Those so-called constitutional things we consider “right.”) And we should be against anything else regardless of our common sense and current knowledge. (Those so-called non-constitutional things we should consider “wrong.”) This bothers me because the hole-poopers didn’t intend the document to be used as a substitute for thinking.
I recommend a new standard for deciding right and wrong. We have lots of opinion polls, and they seem reasonably accurate. I say that any time two-thirds of the citizens have the same point of view on an issue that that point of view is automatically called “right” and the alternative is called “wrong.” My reasoning is that two-thirds of the adult citizen population would be enough to amend the constitution, assuming they all voted and lived in the right places. (BOCTAOE)
Sadly there is no snappy media-friendly name for “two-thirds of the adult citizens who could vote.” Plurality and majority aren’t specific enough. TTOTACWCV is hard to remember. “Might makes right” is close to the point, but it has a negative connotation.
I recommend just referring to this situation as a 667 – a short and oh-so-cool way of indicating that at least 66.7% of the population agrees with you, and therefore you are “right” by definition. This would be a big time-saver at parties. Example:
Other Guy: “Blah, blah, blah, it’s unconstitutional.”
You: “I have to toss you a 667 on that one. Hey, my glass is empty. Nice talking to you.”