The US Constitution

preet_pari

preet_pari

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Points
6
I've never understood why so many Americans treat with near religious reverence the opinions of a bunch of rich white guys 250 years ago. It would be like us holding slavishly to the wording of Magna Carta. Seeing as it doesn't seem to protect people's right to life and liberty, I'm confused as to why it's still so powerful a document.
What am I missing?
 
some people treat it with religious reverence. most people realize that it can be changed, indeed, has been changed--many times actually. there's nothing sacred about it.
 
2nd amendment comes to my mind when i read your op.

of course I think religion is the same. Treat with reverence the opinions of a bunch of 2000 year old guys who didnt even know the world was round, much less what controls the universe.
 
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal, Satire VI.

Who watches the watchmen?

The Constitution says what the government can do. It establishes how it works and sets up a system of checks and balances so that no portion of the government becomes too powerful. And it says what the government cannot do. It establishes rights of every individual that the government cannot restrict. Without the Constitution and the structure and restrictions it imposes on government, any faction that obtained control of Congress would have unlimited power.

The Constitution is a set of rules that even the rule-makers must follow.
 
But societies change over time as do their values. Immutable laws are by definition anti-democratic. It's also a lie. In the words of George Carlin "google Japanese American internment 1942, see how God given and protected your rights are". Effectively you just end up with a barrier to effecting major change.
 
The Constitution can be amended and has been repeatedly. But the supremacy of the Constitution is critical because then the government is playing by a set of known rules. You don't need to keep the same rules as they had in 1789, but in my opinion you do need rules (including rules for the government itself, aka a constitution) in order for rule-of-law to function effectively.

Yes, Japanese internment was a clear-cut violation of Constitutional rights. Because constitutional rights were violated, $1.6 billion in reparations were ultimately paid out to internees. Think of it this way: making murder illegal doesn't prevent murder, but it does give a formalized path for recourse when murder occurs. Similarly, having the Constitution specifically spell out what the government can do and cannot do, and how, doesn't prevent government overreach but it does give a formalized path for recourse when government overreach occurs.
 
We are not a democracy. We never were. As I understand it our founders saw democracy as mob rule and were afraid of it. We are a democratic republic. Like common law and the code of hammurabi, it seeks to limit the power of the governing from un-necessarily oppressing its people.

Yes, I think this is the point. They developed a system with a good (for the time) method of governing and did not want it to be changed on a whim. Simular to how the rights of accused criminals keep people from being accused, convicted, and punished on the same day.
Also, The survivors of Magellans' expedition returned to Spain in 1522. I think somewhere in the 250 years Americas founders had head the news.
 
But I'm not suggesting that constitutions are bad, clearly they're not, it's the immutability of the bill of rights that's the issue. Democracies change their constitutions all the time, with various mechanisms in place to facilitate this outside the usual government process (referendum being commonly used). You can't have a conversation about gun control, press accountability etc, etc, without people getting all emotive because some guys who thought that slavery represented sound business practice felt a certain way.
 
Doesn't every country have topics that when discussed, cause a simular reaction? The founders of all governments are just men, prone to mistakes. That does not mean we should ignore the advancements they made.
 
Controversial topics are controversial, the emotional attachment to the constitution issue is pretty unique to the US.
 
mitlov is right of course. It has been amended to reflect our modern day thinking. (or yours because im canadian not american)
 
The amendments are add ons and case specific clarifications though, have any of the rights ever been plain removed?
 
Yeah, I think you are right here. Other countries are just attched to different things. The British obssesion with royalty is completly baffling to me.
 
Yes, but not from the original ten. We Americans love those first ten. I just wish we could get our government to love them just as much!
 
But we're not obsessed with royalty, if anything royalty continues because we don't care that much about it. Indeed, having been in the US during the royal wedding, I'd say Americans are much more obsessed with royalty than we are.
 
Just so I'm clear, is this the whole "why does the second amendment exist" debate all over again, or are you hoping to see the repeal of any other portions of the Bill of Rights?
 
The what doesn't actually interest me so much as the why TBH. While I would not want to see American style deregulation of firearms here I can see that America is too far down the roads to effectively put the brakes on anytime soon.
It's the rhetoric that surrounds such discussions that interests me.
 
Indeed I understand why the second amendment exists, the question is why does it automatically have to continue to exist and why does it matter so much what a group of social elites in the 1770s intended when they wrote it. Whether or not it should continue to exist is something for Americans to decide, but at present the way the bill of rights is viewed prevents meaningful conversation. It's the logical equivalent of God or Hitler in internet discussions.
 
Back
Top