The US Constitution

[ld123]

The single most important characteristic for the British people, it seems to me, is dignity. Whether you're talking about royalty (which you say you're not obsessed with, but you nevertheless have maintained with great pomp and circumstance into the 21st century) or whether you're talking about "Keep Calm and Carry On," the uniquely British response to the UK being bombed in WWII, dignity is the first and foremost value that defines being British.

The single most important characteristic for the American people is freedom. The Bill of Rights is both the greatest symbol of freedom we have, and the mechanism by which we enforce that freedom. Asking Americans why they revere our greatest symbol of freedom is like asking the British people why they care so much about being dignified. I can't think of anything that's deeper ingrained in culture.

 

[DaniJuggalizzle]

The problem is that the first ten are up for interpretation and everyone thinks their interpretation is the only right one.

I think Sifu Ben is correct when he uses the term religious reverence because I'm sick of the term "god given right" for every single line in the bill of rights. It's difficult to discuss any of it because the slightest suggestion of reinterpreting any of the first ten is often seen as blasphemy.

I love the constitution and what it represents. Hell I swore to protect and defend it but these days it seems to be used mainly as a propaganda tool and to further a specific groups political agenda than anything else.

 

[darrinb]

Can't agrue with that Flux!

 

[AmyLou]

If American tourists didn't keep spending so much money to see royal attractions, we'd spend far less on them (although TBF they are independently wealthy anyway). Indeed that money is one of the major arguments for keeping them.

 

[azbaracing]

Let's not get mired in that tangent. I think dignity, as a virtue, is held in a position of greater importance in British culture than American culture.

(1) Would you agree that different cultures, as a whole, hold different values in particular esteem? (duty/honor in Japan, dignity in Britain, etc).

(2) Would you agree that Americans tend to hold freedom as a virtue in particularly high esteem?

(3) Would you agree that the Bill of Rights is the biggest symbol of freedom in American history?

(4) Would you agree that the Bill of Rights is the legal framework by which Americans can enforce their rights if the government oversteps?

...If you agree to all four, it should be clear why we have such a zealous defense of the Bill of Rights. If you don't agree with one of those four propositions, let me know which one and why.

 

[ms827wins]

1) Maybe, although something of a generalisation
2) Tricky. While a lot of rhetoric is spouted about freedom I've never seen that the average American actually has any more freedom than anyone in any other developed nation.Indeed due to the gross inequalities of American society many people realistically have less.
3)Firstly, not really that great a symbol. Secondly, freedom for who? Freedom for African Americans? Freedom for Aboriginal Americans? Freedom for Chinese Americans? As with many such documents (such as Magna Carta) it primarily protected the freedoms of the 1%.
4) Enforce how exactly?If the army came around tomorrow and rounded you up, how exactly would the bill of rights protect you? By the time you actually need protecting from your government it's already too late. If the DHS grabbed you off the street, detained you under the Patriot Act and disappeared you into a black prison in Uzbekistan, how would it help you? Coupled with that the US already has a long list of incidents where law enforcement agencies have acted with extreme force that you would not see elsewhere.

 

[RodS]

Regardless of that, how do any of those things make it immutable? Like I say, an unchangeable law is by definition undemocratic, which means reduced freedom.

 

[beagle_owner]

I was talking about national ideals. Arguing that "Americans don't have more freedoms than the British," whether or not that's accurate (another discussion entirely), doesn't change the fact that freedom is elevated higher as a national ideal by Americans than it is by British.



America is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is tyranny of the majority. Segregation was overturned as unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education) despite the support of a majority of the population. Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, was ruled unconstitutional despite the support of a majority of the population.

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote." -- Marvin Simkin (frequently misattributed to Benjamin Franklin).

 

[Justchecking]

I agree with what you are saying here about the ideal of freedom. But if that ideal isn't put into practise then it's just empty words. Politicians are highly adept at taking away people's freedom in the name of freedom (either their own people's frredom or someone else's.)

The problem with that is that you have a system where the ideals of a small, privilaged minority from long ago still hold sway over everyone today. But the examples you gave are good ones of how the system can produce the right result, even if the majority were happy to see the constitution subverted for a century!

 

[Robin_TN]

I'm not overly convinced that 'dignity' is a particularly British trait. It's certainly not one I would recognise in the majority of the people I've seen in this country. Rather I suspect that it is an external image fostered by film stereotypes. The post WWII image of the dignified Brit has generally disappeared in Europe due to cheap flights showing people on the continent exactly what a huge proportion of the populace are like. In the early 19th Century Wellington wasn't far off the mark when he described his army as being the scum of the earth. The 'Keep Calm and Carry On' poster which has enjoyed such popularity recently was never even published during WWII and is viewed more as a joke than a directive.

Personally I would say that valuing freedom is a particularly British trait, and one that people in the British nations have fought and campaigned for at home and abroad for centuries. From the rights of the common man enshrined in Anglo Saxon and Danelaw legal codes, to the Magna Carta, through to the Poll Tax riots of the early middle ages and the Peasants revolt, Parliament's wars against King Charles I, the Restoration, the international campaigns against the slave trade, through to the modern day and the World Wars. There have been periods of time where some of these freedoms have been suppressed, but given that we are talking about a period of history of over a thousand years, the majority of which in a preindustrial society, that's hardly surprising. What is important to bear in mind is that freedom, as a concept, means different things in different cultures.



Ultimately I'd say this is a generalisation. But there's no smoke without fire.

 

[christinehughes994]

I'm (as far as I know) as British as it comes and it baffles me too.
Deference to, and maintenance of, an upper class and the class system is one of the worst things about British culture IMHO.
Why people are fascinated by people with access to hereditary privilige is utterly beyond me.

 

[monkeydamour]

And anyone that thinks British culture is defined by "dignity" needs to hang around any British city centre on a Saturday night.
Dignity won't be the first thing to spring to mind.

 

[AlexisInfectious®]

I find it interesting that two people have stated that the US isn't a democracy when it's clearly a constitutional representative democracy

 

[ArnoldD]

Well the first thing you have to understand is the constitution doesn’t give us any rights it limits the how much the US government infringe on our natural (endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights) rights.

Yes I know that is from the Declaration of Independence but is carried over into the constitution.




The us is a constitutional republic.

Quick starting place.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html

 

[imjustbeingme]

Because in a democracy the majority wins. We have some limits as to what the majority can do, so we are not a pure democracy. At least that is the way I see it.


This is getting off to another argument. The hypocracy of a government. Your government is just as guilty of doing bad things too.

 

[ChrisTheMagic]

i'm certain you can find good and bad in any system of governance. you can talk about freedom that the british love all you want, they didn't exactly want it for their subjects: ireland, india, etc. how did the opium wars work out for china, btw?

but my point is not to denigrate england, we've got a lot of our own problems as many have mentioned. i think as long as the people have a voice, then that's a good thing. we'll always be trying to live up to the ideals of our system of government and hoping that the good outweigh the bad.

i'm not one of those that think that we should all arm ourselves in order to keep the government in check either. how stupid is that anyway? instead, we should use the example of martin luther king jr: the only way to peace and lasting change is through non-violence.

 

[DivaInNewYork]

I think you have to distinguish between the freedom that the people want and the freedom that their rulers will allow them to have. When the two get too far apart, that's when you get trouble.

As for the colonies, it's very rare that any people happily accepts being ruled over by foriegners. Imperialism and colonialism inevitably lead to abuse of freedom. But having an empire was a surprisingly effective way of persuading the plebs back home that they were 'special', which made them happy to put up with being treated like dirt by their 'betters'.

For example, during the heyday of the British Empire, the average working man in Britain lived in some of the worst housing in Europe, worked in dangerous conditions, was paid a pittance and often had to eat food that was heavily adulterated with junk. But they were supposed to be proud of their 'freedom' and their glorious Empire! I think it was one of the biggest con tricks in history.

 

[lindsayz]

Sounds like life today. Haha...bit of politics there.

 

[Je1]

The amendment will continue to exist unless a new amendment is put in place to overturn it (cf. 18 and 21 amendments). Adding a new amendment is very difficult to do and this is designed to keep these rights in place unless a huge majority of Americans (and States) choose to change it. Notice we've only added 17 amendments since the Constitution was ratified.

Now, that doesn't mean that you cannot change what they mean according to the times. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (and Amendments) through court cases. Look at issues such as racial segregation - it was deemed allowable under the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson but later overturned in Brown v. BOE. Take a look at changes done concerning "abortion law" (see Roe v. Wade and then see Planned Parenthood v. Casey)

What happens is that a state (or federal entity) can pass a law restricting firearms. Then someone challenges it and it goes to the Supreme Court. They rule whether that law is "constitutional" or not. It is accepted that "reasonable" restrictions may be placed on firearms, so long as it doesn't interfere with the right to "bear them". In a recent case, the Supreme Court actually extended rights to citizens in D.C. who were told they could not have firearms. (See http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

In essence , although the Amendment may remain, it is subject to frequent interpretation as the times changes...

 

[KelliJ]

Seriously, there is no comparison. No-one today lives in the conditions that many working families had to live in back in the 1930's, and that was nothing compared to the way many people lived back in the 1800's.

People nowadays think they're poor if their big screen colour tv is only 38" and not 40", or if they don't have the latest smartphone. Poor back in the day meant having to eke the families food out til the next pay packet.