The US Constitution

One thing I read, (and I don't know how true it actually is) is that the US constitution had created a problem because it allows the three branches of the legislature to effectively vetoe each other, which can sometimes make effective government very difficult. (eg. if you had, say, a Republican-dominated senate, a democrat-dominated House and a President who neither house got on with particularly well.)
 
Seriously I was joking. The heavily adulterated with junk comment raised a smirk given recent horse based events.
 
I think it might depend on what you call effective government. To me, I don't want my government to be able to make broad sweeping changes on the drop of a hat (like the un-patriot act!). It is desinged to keep too much power out of any one groups hands. I think the majority of our problems lie with too much corperate involvment in government rather than fundamental sytem flaws.
 
there's a separation of powers. sometimes it makes life difficult if one group is obstinate.

frankly, the parliamentary system is even more fraught with stalemates. read a wonderful book about the algerian war a while back. it was just interesting to me that so many french governments were brought down because of it. the parliamentary system in this case was detrimental to governing france and/or the war effort during this time.
 
France, like the USA, is an example of a country with a 'designer constitution', in as much as they sat down and thrashed out what they thought would be the best system of government for the country. The difference is that they have had to go back to the drawing board a few times, whereas the USA successfully created a constitution which has lasted over two hundred years, been successfully amended without having to be radically overhauled, and which has survived a pretty vicious civil war. When you think about it, that's a hell of an achievement.

England, by contrast, has a constitution which has evolved over centuries. It's very flexible by contrast with that of the USA, but in it's own quaint way it just about works.
 
interesting thing about the constitution and the religious ferver it inspires in some. there actually was a huge fault in the document, and that was the tacit legalization of slavery. when you hear sarah palin, michelle bachmann wax poetic about this document, they always forget to mention that part.
 
What you describe is constitutional democracy, which is the way most democracies in the modern world function.
It's got nothing to do with hypocrisy of government, the discussion is the beliefs that some Americans hold about the constitution, and whether those beliefs represent reality.
 
Probably because we don't have an actual physical constitution (despite being a constitutional monarchy). Our constitution is much more nebulous.
 
It sometimes feels like the elephant in the room where anything to do with US history is concerned. (Although it was of course a situation that they inherited from the British.)

Even though a colony like Massachussetts (sp?) where the American 'revolution' started had outlawed slavery beforehand, they could only get the support of the rich southern states by accepting the continuation of slavery in those states who wanted to keep it. And many of the 'founding fathers' were slave owners.

I suppose it was like a timebomb waiting to go off one day. A huge problem inbuilt in the new republic from day one. But presumably there was no way that the USA could have been formed as it was without it. Or you could have formed a Union and a Confederacy from the start.
 
That's right, we don't have a single written constitution. We have a variety of constitutional laws (e.g. the Parliament Act.)
 
yes johnno, it was a huge problem that everyone knew was one day going to come to a head. the only way they could get the southern states to sign on, was to tacitly endorse it. the 3/5's clause was put in there to keep the south from overrunning the north representative wise. they thought that it would die off, but the cotton gin took care of that.

i love my country's people and i love my country. but sometimes i do think we'd be better off if certain states were their own country.

this is a hilarious movie if you're into some quasi-fantastical history...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S.A.:_The_Confederate_States_of_America
 
I was addressing two seperate posts. I must have not quoted them clearly. The answers were not intended to relate to/support one another. Sorry bout the confusion. I am not always as clear speaking as I think I am.
 
Fascinating observation. For the British, hmmm, thinking about it now -- I would have said "proper," as in good manners and good form. Captain Hook talks about that all the time in the Peter Pan book. Alice is ever polite despite the absurdity of everyone and everything in Wonderland. It's all over the Mary Poppins movie, and it's in the television show Keeping Up Appearances that my mom loves.

For the USA, though, I think you're absolutely right. Supporting examples: the poem engraved at the base of the Statute of Liberty, our national hymn "America the Beautiful," Neil Diamond's "America," Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA."



This is an original design feature, not a surprise problem. It was done intentionally for the purpose of slowing down the federal government.
 
Very true, but that part was open and got fixed. There's a more subtle and more damaging error in the document that has not been fixed. It's the spending clause coupled with the "necessary and proper" clause. Congress has free reign to do anything it wants, and it does, and that's the source of the demise of American freedom.
 
I realise that, but I got the impression that perhaps it slows it down a bit TOO much at times.

hasn't it been the case during Preident Obama's first term of office that it was very difficult to get any legislation through Congress, because at least one of the houses was basically just excercising a veto over anything that the President tried to do?
 
Tell that to Obama. The US administration gets around the rules all the time. And sometimes it just ignores them. A written constitution does absolutely nothing to protect you from a government that operates in secrete. All it really does is make you feel protected.
 
And thanks to the thirteenth amendment, it's now explicitly prohibited. Idolizing the Constitution does NOT equal condoning slavery.
 
Like I said, like prohibiting murder, it doesn't prevent murder but it gives a concrete path of legal recourse when it does occur.

Obama's drone policies, like Bush's Guantanimo policies, will be litigated in the courts. Without constitutional protections, there would be no litigation because there would be no legal basis for objecting to the policies.
 
No, but it does ignore the fact that it was created by a group of men, each with their own flaws and foibles, who were perfectly capable of getting it wrong, or times changing and their beliefs no longer being relevant.
 
Back
Top