The American Constitution

[Ken Korda]

So reading the 'School Shootings' thread got me to wondering...

Why does the USA treat its constitution like some sort of infallible, rule of the universe?

Ok, that's an exaggeration but it seem (From a European perspective) that the phrase 'unconstitutional' is frequently used as a derogatory term in American politics. If it will be advantageous to the country, why can you not just change the constitution?

Is it nationalism? Is it tradition? Where does this belief come from?

In the Uk we don't have a single document called 'The British Constitution' so I've never been exposed to this kind of debate. WHat are the pros and cons of sticking religously to a set of 300 year old rules?

 

[Hallow'sEve]

Because that document gave us our country and it's identity so changing it would be like switching out the Statue of Liberty's natural soft breasts and giving her those horrid plastic, hard, uneven ones.
They're still breasts and they might be bigger but you always want the natural ones.

 

[The Gardener]

Why does the USA treat its constitution like some sort of infallible, rule of the universe?

Because it is, and they are fundamentally good ideas. Though rule of the universe ma not apply, the Constitution is infallible in relation to the US.

 

[Ken Korda]

But surely you don't think the US system of Government is a perfect system. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good one but surely there's still room for improvement?

 

[Undeadpope]

Growing up in Ireland,I know the feel of it pretty well,however our "constitutional" as such can be change and has been.An example of this was it used to be illegal to get a divorce until somewhere around 1980(feel free to correct me anyone who happens to know but I am not greating sure about time only its happening).

to get back to the question,"WHat are the pros and cons of sticking religously to a set of 300 year old rules?" I am a fairly anti "constitional"(in Ireland case) because Ireland was(and still has influence)very catholic and thats there was some constitional laws with very roman catholic sides.

 

[SOAL]

Well as an American (sometimes not a good label..can't lie) it's been pumped into our heads at an early age that the constitution is infallible...our "God given rights"...but I've never understood why these can change...something so infallible and "god given" can change?! so the word unconstitutional is more of a word thrown around here to describe "inhumane acts"...or acts against the people of this country...and to have something in the constitution ripped from you at any point in time to me is..unconstitutional...UNLESS it serves the purpose of what our government is trying to accomplish..(NOT my ideals but it IS theirs) so trust me...it's NOT perfect hahaha...but 90% of the United State's population thinks so or is so busy not caring they don't see the flaws....but i DO live in a country of jackasses...welcome to America

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Ok, that's an exaggeration but it seem (From a European perspective) that the phrase 'unconstitutional' is frequently used as a derogatory term in American politics. If it will be advantageous to the country, why can you not just change the constitution?

Is it nationalism? Is it tradition? Where does this belief come from?

In the Uk we don't have a single document called 'The British Constitution' so I've never been exposed to this kind of debate. WHat are the pros and cons of sticking religously to a set of 300 year old rules?

They don't. The US Constitution has undergone 27 Amendments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendment_process] over its history to make changes felt necessary by governments of the times. (Some of these have been since recinded by other amendments.) It's not a rigid document, written and done as Magna Carta was.

So the objection is that if something violates the US Constitution, but you really feel it's necessary, instead of ramming it through and forcing the court system to accept it the proper course is to propose another amendment. Admittedly it's a rigamarole to get an amendment passed, but if what you're proposing is important enough to permanently affect how the nation will be governed then it should be worth putting through that sort of scrutiny. Ramming it through, then, looks shoddy and sneaky, as if you have something to hide within this new (and likely very powerful) law.

-- Steve

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Why does the USA treat its constitution like some sort of infallible, rule of the universe?

Because it is, and they are fundamentally good ideas. Though rule of the universe ma not apply, the Constitution is infallible in relation to the US.

Nothing is infallible. Everything should be questioned, because as times changes, so does a country.

Why must the president be a natural born citizen? Why do you have the right to wear firearms?

 

[Avatar Roku]

Simply, our founding fathers got together and drafted the constitution as rules. If a law is passed that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can overturn it.

 

[SOAL]

Ok, that's an exaggeration but it seem (From a European perspective) that the phrase 'unconstitutional' is frequently used as a derogatory term in American politics. If it will be advantageous to the country, why can you not just change the constitution?

Is it nationalism? Is it tradition? Where does this belief come from?

In the Uk we don't have a single document called 'The British Constitution' so I've never been exposed to this kind of debate. WHat are the pros and cons of sticking religously to a set of 300 year old rules?

They don't. The US Constitution has undergone 27 Amendments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendment_process] over its history to make changes felt necessary by governments of the times. (Some of these have been since recinded by other amendments.) It's not a rigid document, written and done as Magna Carta was.

So the objection is that if something violates the US Constitution, but you really feel it's necessary, instead of ramming it through and forcing the court system to accept it the proper course is to propose another amendment. Admittedly it's a rigamarole to get an amendment passed, but if what you're proposing is important enough to permanently affect how the nation will be governed then it should be worth putting through that sort of scrutiny. Ramming it through, then, looks shoddy and sneaky, as if you have something to hide within this new (and likely very powerful) law.

-- Steve

and this country cannot seem to make up its mind....look at prohibition

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I don't see why the bill of rights doesn't get applauded as much as the constitution, especially since the key bits of the constitution are often amendments...

 

[videonerd250]

But surely you don't think the US system of Government is a perfect system. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good one but surely there's still room for improvement?

Of course there is. There always is need for improvement in every place of the world. And a lot of people actively try to improve this country through our constitution.
Also, we have been changing the constitution since since it was signed.
The Constitution here is so important because I guess it set the ground rules for starting our own country.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Acutally, the right to arms is only to form militias to turn back invading forces. And that is way different from the right to arms we have now. So technically our right to arms isn't all that well gauranteed by the constitution. Oh, and gun lobbyists thats what mostly keep guns in the hands of the misguided.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

and this country cannot seem to make up its mind....look at prohibition

Well, yes... legislators are only human, and they can screw up too. At least it's fixable.

-- Steve

 

[Ken Korda]

True there have been amendments, as someone mentioned 27.

27 just doesn't seem like that much for 300 years of change and development

 

[beddo]

So reading the 'School Shootings' thread got me to wondering...

Why does the USA treat its constitution like some sort of infallible, rule of the universe?

Ok, that's an exaggeration but it seem (From a European perspective) that the phrase 'unconstitutional' is frequently used as a derogatory term in American politics. If it will be advantageous to the country, why can you not just change the constitution?

Is it nationalism? Is it tradition? Where does this belief come from?

In the Uk we don't have a single document called 'The British Constitution' so I've never been exposed to this kind of debate. WHat are the pros and cons of sticking religously to a set of 300 year old rules?

The US Constitution isn't really worth a lot. In order for a constitution to work it has to be enforced, which it often isn't. The US Patriot Act 2004 legally undermined a lot of the Constitution. Just go back a while and you've got slavery, extreme racism and discrimination to this day, especially against muslims.

Look at the McCarthy trials; in the 1940's people were prosecuted for believing in communist ideals or fratenising with those who do or even might.

It wasn't until 1994 that a school in the US finally dropped its own rule that there were not allowed to be mixed race relationships between students.

All kinds of anti-homosexual laws are constantly trying to be passed that will undermine the Consitution. The US still hasn't seperated church and state as the Constitution requires. The NSA have been working with telecoms companies to intercept citizens' communications without a warrant for years, a clear violation of privacy laws.

Those who drafted the Constitution did actually want it to be redrafted by subsequent generations in case any points may have been incompatible with future generations and developments.


In the UK we do have constitutional rights, they're simply not drafted into one document. Moreover, we have the extra protection of the EU, an external body, which the US does not.

 

[beddo]

True there have been amendments, as someone mentioned 27.

27 just doesn't seem like that much for 300 years of change and development

Maybe there doesn't need to be, it is a very good document, apart from the bearing arms bit.

 

[Fearzone]

But surely you don't think the US system of Government is a perfect system. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good one but surely there's still room for improvement?

As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government... except for everything else. If Americans value the U.S. Constitution, then why would people in other countries care?

^^... and the bearing arms bit is just fine. Leave it.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I also find it funny the way some Americans try to link the constitution to Magna Carta.

That's great except for the fact that they're centuries apart in different countries. That and the Magna Carta is a sporadic document that talks as much about fishponds as it does about limiting the rights of kings and ultimately was largely ignored by later kings and even annuled by the pope....

 

[matrix3509]

So reading the 'School Shootings' thread got me to wondering...

Why does the USA treat its constitution like some sort of infallible, rule of the universe?

Ok, that's an exaggeration but it seem (From a European perspective) that the phrase 'unconstitutional' is frequently used as a derogatory term in American politics. If it will be advantageous to the country, why can you not just change the constitution?

Is it nationalism? Is it tradition? Where does this belief come from?

In the Uk we don't have a single document called 'The British Constitution' so I've never been exposed to this kind of debate. WHat are the pros and cons of sticking religously to a set of 300 year old rules?

We love our constitution because it can be changed without civl war as so many other countries are likely to do.

If you've ever heard the term "Living Contitution", you know what I mean. Thats why we like it, because it is unyielding where it needs to be and flexible everywhere else (like a living thing).