I would cautiously applaud this victory, however, the word "indefinitely" could be a problem; it should have been stated as "permanently." This could end up as a situation where "No" means "not now" rather than "never," and future administrations could have another try at getting to "yes" which always means "forever." There needs to be another level of legal repose situated between Constitutional Law and statue law; let's call it BTDT - been there, done that. Large advances in societal change that do not need the power of a constitution amendment but need protection from electoral turnover could be entered into BTDT by default and would require a super-majority vote as well as stakeholder approval to be altered. Such a system would have been beneficial in USA during the "Reconstruction" period.
I would cautiously applaud this victory, however, the word "indefinitely" could be a problem; it should have been stated as "permanently." This could end up as a situation where "No" means "not now" rather than "never," and future administrations could have another try at getting to "yes" which always means "forever." There needs to be another level of legal repose situated between Constitutional Law and statue law; let's call it BTDT - been there, done that. Large advances in societal change that do not need the power of a constitution amendment but need protection from electoral turnover could be entered into BTDT by default and would require a super-majority vote as well as stakeholder approval to be altered. Such a system would have been beneficial in USA during the "Reconstruction" period.