The American Constitution

[Necrophagist]

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 American Constitution as a concept is quite different than the English concept. To Brits, the constitution simply means what Parliament has decided - it's not a document, the constitution of Britain bears little resemblance to that of, say, 100 years ago. The founders of the American nation believed that a Constitution should be a static, cemented document that should govern a nation through time.

You have to understand that America was formed in REACTION to English style of rule. Whereas England had the Church of England, America separated church and state. England had no unchanging set of rules, the United States had an unchanging document that dictated its rule.

Americans do understand the Constitution as a sacred document. Just as we have deified our founding politicians, we have given their document, the Constitution, as religious coating, as if it were the "word" of our gods. It does become infallible, just as fundamentalist Christians understand the Bible as perfect. So is it true? Is the Constitution a perfect document?

Like the Bible, no. But it forms a solid and unchanging foundation for our country, something that, with the chaning and uncertain nature of the world, unites our diverse country and gives us a sense of identity. It is our Magna Carta, if that makes more sense to you. America is made of up so many differing relgions and a growing non-religious section of the population. We have dramatically different cultures from one area to another - me, in Idaho, I have a very different understanding of what it means to be American. One common document, one central Rule of Law, unites us and binds us together. That makes it a sacred document.

 

[matrix3509]

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....

Umm...

The U.S. constitution was modeled specifically after the Magna Carta. If you think otherwise, think again, and maybe actually read both documents before you go handing out ridiculous statements like that.

The Founding Fathers needed something as a frame of reference to create the constitution. Along with the Magna Carta, influnences were also taken from the writings of John Locke and Descartes.

 

[Necrophagist]

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....

We link the Magna Carta to the Constitution for the very reason that they both represent a shift in power from the governing elite to the people. The Magna Carta was the result of the crumbling feudal system and a growing notion that ruling classes have responsibilities to the peasant class as much as the peasant class has obligations to serve their rulers. The Magna Carta lead to the Social Contract Theory, which was highly influential in the formation of the ideas in the constitution.

I'm a history major, friends. Sorry if I'm dominating the conversation.

 

[Necrophagist]

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....

Umm...

The U.S. constitution was modeled specifically after the Magna Carta. If you think otherwise, think again, and maybe actually read both documents before you go handing out ridiculous statements like that.

The Founding Fathers needed something as a frame of reference to create the constitution. Along with the Magna Carta, influnences were also taken from the writings of John Locke and Descartes.

How did Descartes influence the Constitution? I agree that the French Enlightenment fueled the thinking of early Americans, but specifically Descartes?

 

[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?

The American Constitution as a concept is quite different than the English concept. To Brits, the constitution simply means what Parliament has decided - it's not a document, the constitution of Britain bears little resemblance to that of, say, 100 years ago. The founders of the American nation believed that a Constitution should be a static, cemented document that should govern a nation through time.

You have to understand that America was formed in REACTION to English style of rule. Whereas England had the Church of England, America separated church and state. England had no unchanging set of rules, the United States had an unchanging document that dictated its rule.

Americans do understand the Constitution as a sacred document. Just as we have deified our founding politicians, we have given their document, the Constitution, as religious coating, as if it were the "word" of our gods. It does become infallible, just as fundamentalist Christians understand the Bible as perfect. So is it true? Is the Constitution a perfect document?

Like the Bible, no. But it forms a solid and unchanging foundation for our country, something that, with the chaning and uncertain nature of the world, unites our diverse country and gives us a sense of identity. It is our Magna Carta, if that makes more sense to you. America is made of up so many differing relgions and a growing non-religious section of the population. We have dramatically different cultures from one area to another - me, in Idaho, I have a very different understanding of what it means to be American. One common document, one central Rule of Law, unites us and binds us together. That makes it a sacred document.

You are right except for the unchanging part.

Few people actually realize what the Constitution is actually for. They assume that it is what gives us our laws and rights. They are incorrect. The constitution is nothing more than a document for laying out how the government should be set up. Sure it states what laws government cannot pass, but that is about it. The laws governing the people's rights come from the Bill of Rights and no where else.

EDIT: It is little more than a list of things that the government is not allowed to do. The second we lose sight of that is the second we lose all of our freedoms.

 

[matrix3509]

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....

Umm...

The U.S. constitution was modeled specifically after the Magna Carta. If you think otherwise, think again, and maybe actually read both documents before you go handing out ridiculous statements like that.

The Founding Fathers needed something as a frame of reference to create the constitution. Along with the Magna Carta, influnences were also taken from the writings of John Locke and Descartes.

How did Descartes influence the Constitution? I agree that the French Enlightenment fueled the thinking of early Americans, but specifically Descartes?

Ow, sorry I feel stupid now. I actually meant Charles de Secondat (Montesquieu).
Thats what I get for mixing up the names, as further evidenced by the fact that I don't know much about Descartes.

 

[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....

We link the Magna Carta to the Constitution for the very reason that they both represent a shift in power from the governing elite to the people. The Magna Carta was the result of the crumbling feudal system and a growing notion that ruling classes have responsibilities to the peasant class as much as the peasant class has obligations to serve their rulers. The Magna Carta lead to the Social Contract Theory, which was highly influential in the formation of the ideas in the constitution.

I'm a history major, friends. Sorry if I'm dominating the conversation.

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....

Umm...

The U.S. constitution was modeled specifically after the Magna Carta. If you think otherwise, think again, and maybe actually read both documents before you go handing out ridiculous statements like that.

Okay let me go through it in detail: http://www.usconstitution.net/magna.html

The Magna Carta is principly concerned with economic and inheritance issues and with a small group of people. The only relevant bits could be 17, 41, 42, 60, 61, 62, and 63.
I don't think you can argue 33, 49, 50, 51, 54 are relevant in the slightest in anything but the short-term of the Magna Carta's signing.

 

[Irridium]

its because the constitution was written by some of the most brilliant people of the time.
great minds like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington to name a few.

The constitution hasn't changed because its rules are fine, and it works fine. Its just how some people interprate it. Thats why we have the Judicial system (the courts) The U.S. Supreme Court's job is to interperate the constitution and the amendments.

The Bill of Right is basically filled with basic human rights, like right of free speech, religion, press, and other freedoms like abolition of slavery and everyone is equal regardless of race, creed, or color. Those are also in other countries' constitutions in one way or another.

And its true, everyone should be treated equally and everyone should have a right to free speech. religion, ect.

I think that England has a constitutional monarchy (most likely spelled that wrong)so I have no idea what that is like.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Okay let me go through it in detail: http://www.usconstitution.net/magna.html

The Magna Carta is principly concerned with economic and inheritance issues and with a small group of people. The only relevant bits could be 17, 41, 42, 60, 61, 62, and 63.

Your mistake was to go through it in detail. The greatest source of inspiration for the Constitution, was the overarching idea that the power of the sovereign was capable of being--and should be--bound by legal documents, documents that could be used later against the sovereign power to bind the power of the sovereign by non-sovereigns.

It was the idea that the sovereign can be subjected to the due process of law, and that the sovereign can't act upon you, the subject, without also using due process of law. That's the most significant link between the Magna Carta and the Constitution.

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. It's the concept, not the content - Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Necrophagist]

Okay let me go through it in detail: http://www.usconstitution.net/magna.html

The Magna Carta is principly concerned with economic and inheritance issues and with a small group of people. The only relevant bits could be 17, 41, 42, 60, 61, 62, and 63.

Your mistake was to go through it in detail. The greatest source of inspiration for the Constitution, was the overarching idea that the power of the sovereign was capable of being--and should be--bound by legal documents, documents that could be used later against the sovereign power to bind the power of the sovereign by non-sovereigns.

It was the idea that the sovereign can be subjected to the due process of law, and that the sovereign can't act upon you, the subject, without also using due process of law. That's the most significant link between the Magna Carta and the Constitution.

Right. It's about what the document represented, not only about the contents of the document.

 

[Caliostro]

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.

No it's not, that's why there are amendments... Quite a lot of them mind you.

 

[Steelfists]

its because the constitution was written by some of the most brilliant people of the time.
great minds like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington to name a few.

Why were they brilliant?

(Seriously. I don't know.)

 

[Necrophagist]

Why do people think that amendments CHANGE the Constitution, as in negate it? A constitutional amendment becomes a part of the original document. It's not as if the government can go into the original text and erase certain parts. They can't just say, "we vote to erase the presidential term limit" and it is so. An amendment cannot cause a negation in the Constitution, else the Supreme Court will find the amendment to be unconstitutional and strike it down.

Now, Rule of Law and laws are different - the Constitution established a Rule of Law (in the Roman sense) in the United States, but it did not define every law. It grants powers to tax to Congress, but does not define the tax code. It gives the House the ability to create funding laws, but does not define those funding laws. Get it? It is a document which separates and defines powers, but it does not prescribe which laws should be passed.

Some of you are right that certain actions have undermined the Constitution, one of which being the increasing powers of the Presidency. I am currently studying under Dr. David Adler, and if you want to study the process of the Presidency stealing power, read his books. The man is a genius. He has the President on speed-dial. I shit you not.

But, my point: Some laws have undermined what the Constitution said. Some amendments have been made (less than 30, which in the 230 some odd years our country has been around, ain't bad). This does not mean the Constitution is any less important to our national Identity or how our country conducts its business. It is still an essentially unchanged, eternal document. It is one of the reasons our nation has avoided the cycle of shifting power that every other nation experiences on about a 170-year repeating cycle (see: France)

 

[Necrophagist]

its because the constitution was written by some of the most brilliant people of the time.
great minds like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington to name a few.

Why were they brilliant?

(Seriously. I don't know.)

Honestly, I could fill every last bit of The Escapist's server space talking about them. Go buy some books, particularly the MASSIVE library that Thomas Jefferson contributed. Washington's letters are the main source for his study, since he didn't write that much in the form of books and pamphlets (he was too busy kicking Redcoat ass). Ben Franklin wrote a LOT of letters and pamphlets that have survived to the modern day - the man was a political genius and a cultural Renaissance man. He was also hilarious and quite witty.

 

[willard3]

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.

If our right to bear arms gets rescinded because we "don't have militias" and then we get invaded, I bet all the people who were so happy we lost the 2nd Amendment will be complaining that people aren't defending themselves.

We don't have to have any explicitly-formed militias for the 2nd Amendment to take effect. It goes with the other bits about property and liberty...so you can defend your property and liberty when necessary. Also, the "militia" can still be formed in case of, oh, invasion by a foreign power...we just haven't had that since 1812 and as such have no modern precedent to relate to.

 

[Necrophagist]

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.

If our right to bear arms gets rescinded because we "don't have militias" and then we get invaded, I bet all the people who were so happy we lost the 2nd Amendment will be complaining that people aren't defending themselves.

We don't have to have any explicitly-formed militias for the 2nd Amendment to take effect. It goes with the other bits about property and liberty...so you can defend your property and liberty when necessary. Also, the "militia" can still be formed in case of, oh, invasion by a foreign power...we just haven't had that since 1812 and as such have no modern precedent to relate to.

The right to bear arms also applies to being protected from the government. As in, the American government. Lest we forget the people who wrote the Constitution did so in direct rebellion to their government?

 

[matrix3509]

Why do people think that amendments CHANGE the Constitution, as in negate it? A constitutional amendment becomes a part of the original document. It's not as if the government can go into the original text and erase certain parts. They can't just say, "we vote to erase the presidential term limit" and it is so. An amendment cannot cause a negation in the Constitution, else the Supreme Court will find the amendment to be unconstitutional and strike it down.

Now, Rule of Law and laws are different - the Constitution established a Rule of Law (in the Roman sense) in the United States, but it did not define every law. It grants powers to tax to Congress, but does not define the tax code. It gives the House the ability to create funding laws, but does not define those funding laws. Get it? It is a document which separates and defines powers, but it does not prescribe which laws should be passed.

Some of you are right that certain actions have undermined the Constitution, one of which being the increasing powers of the Presidency. I am currently studying under Dr. David Adler, and if you want to study the process of the Presidency stealing power, read his books. The man is a genius. He has the President on speed-dial. I shit you not.

But, my point: Some laws have undermined what the Constitution said. Some amendments have been made (less than 30, which in the 230 some odd years our country has been around, ain't bad). This does not mean the Constitution is any less important to our national Identity or how our country conducts its business. It is still an essentially unchanged, eternal document. It is one of the reasons our nation has avoided the cycle of shifting power that every other nation experiences on about a 170-year repeating cycle (see: France)

Minor nitpick. The supreme court literally can't rule an amendment unconstitutional. The checks and balances system enables this to let congress pass something that might be ruled unconstitutional otherwise. Its why Bush went for an abortion amendment rather than going for a regular law, because the Supreme Court can't do a thing to amendment.

[/minor nitpick]

 

[Necrophagist]

Why do people think that amendments CHANGE the Constitution, as in negate it? A constitutional amendment becomes a part of the original document. It's not as if the government can go into the original text and erase certain parts. They can't just say, "we vote to erase the presidential term limit" and it is so. An amendment cannot cause a negation in the Constitution, else the Supreme Court will find the amendment to be unconstitutional and strike it down.

Actually, that's exactly how Amendments work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The twelfth Amendment described how the election of the President should take place. It was procedural. It didn't set his or her term limits, qualifications, etc. That was in article 2.

 

[DeusFps]

Its a good thing. Its just a shame its broken constantly.

 

[Necrophagist]

Why do people think that amendments CHANGE the Constitution, as in negate it? A constitutional amendment becomes a part of the original document. It's not as if the government can go into the original text and erase certain parts. They can't just say, "we vote to erase the presidential term limit" and it is so. An amendment cannot cause a negation in the Constitution, else the Supreme Court will find the amendment to be unconstitutional and strike it down.

Now, Rule of Law and laws are different - the Constitution established a Rule of Law (in the Roman sense) in the United States, but it did not define every law. It grants powers to tax to Congress, but does not define the tax code. It gives the House the ability to create funding laws, but does not define those funding laws. Get it? It is a document which separates and defines powers, but it does not prescribe which laws should be passed.

Some of you are right that certain actions have undermined the Constitution, one of which being the increasing powers of the Presidency. I am currently studying under Dr. David Adler, and if you want to study the process of the Presidency stealing power, read his books. The man is a genius. He has the President on speed-dial. I shit you not.

But, my point: Some laws have undermined what the Constitution said. Some amendments have been made (less than 30, which in the 230 some odd years our country has been around, ain't bad). This does not mean the Constitution is any less important to our national Identity or how our country conducts its business. It is still an essentially unchanged, eternal document. It is one of the reasons our nation has avoided the cycle of shifting power that every other nation experiences on about a 170-year repeating cycle (see: France)

Minor nitpick. The supreme court literally can't rule an amendment unconstitutional. The checks and balances system enables this to let congress pass something that might be ruled unconstitutional otherwise. Its why Bush went for an abortion amendment rather than going for a regular law, because the Supreme Court can't do a thing to amendment.

[/minor nitpick]

In theory, they could. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases that apply to the Federal Government, under which amendments would fall. I don't think there is precedent for such interference, but argued correctly, it would work. Although, one has to wonder, who would do the arguing? If the SC tried to intervene in an amendment (an amendment being a law of sort) who could challenge their right to do so, since the argument would have to be heard by the Supreme Court.

I just divided by Zero.