Is the US constitution evil?

[classical_hero]

I also consider the US constitution evil.

So is the US constitution evil like he says it is?

 

[Ajidica]

Yep. It was written by the Illuminati in the blood of angels on a piece of Jesus's skin they bought from the devil.

 

[WindFish]

Not evil

Just horribly out-dated and inflexible.

 

[JollyRoger]

It started out that way, but the big evils have been amended.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It still throws up unnecesary roadblocks to change. Having said that, most of the roadblocks are really just people clinging to their belief in the infallability of the founders and their intentions.

 

[duckstab]

It's not evil, just badly in need of some new amendments.

It still throws up unnecesary roadblocks to change. Having said that, most of the roadblocks are really just people clinging to their belief in the infallability of the founders and their intentions.

Those unnecessary roadblocks to change are absolutely necessary

Seriously, the fact that it's a pain to amend acts as a brake on change, but not every change is positive. It kept us from having the ERA but it also kept us from having something like DOMA enshrined as the highest law of the land.

I agree with you about the cult of the founding fathers thing, however. I don't see why the intentions of a bunch of dead guys should carry any more weight in interpreting the Constitution than prevailing contemporary values.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Those unnecessary roadblocks to change are absolutely necessary

Seriously, the fact that it's a pain to amend acts as a brake on change, but not every change is positive. It kept us from having the ERA but it also kept us from having something like DOMA enshrined as the highest law of the land.

I don't disagree with you in principle. It should be hard to change. I'm mostly referring to the way the constitution lays out the Senate (inadvertantly) as the place where nothing gets done, the way the Constitution causes an endless campaign cycle that gets in the way of getting progress on many issues in Congress.

I'm also referring to those who pick and choose which issues are unconstitutional because 'the framers intent, yadda yadda' and those who say things like 'the Constitution clearly lays out that America is a Christian nation'.

So the problem isn't entirely the Constitution itself, as I alluded to before, but unintended consequences (the supermajority thing is actually a quirk caused by basically a loophole in the constitution - it wasn't intended to exist) of failures of the document and the absolute refusal of some politicians to accept certain changes/laws and justify their stance on 'framers intent' instead or rational argument.

Not all laws or changes should be made. But when the only reason you really have to oppose such changes other than your own personal beliefs is because you think some guys who have been dead 200 years wouldn't like it, well, you're just being a jerk.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, GoodSarmatian was totally serious when he said that

 

[holy king]

it's cult object, not necessarily evil.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The Constitution only ever served a purpose beyond enshrining the powers of government when the United States was a collection of bickering former colonies that were more than eager to go their separate ways. It was a document conceived out of compromise, and doesn't present any kind of law from on high that we ought to blindly obey. Blahblahblah, etc.

We should be able to change when and if it's necessary to do so, but the only thing evil about it is the pseudo-religious cultism it provokes with people who are convinced it represents a moral authority that all states and governments ought to be compared to.

 

[Crezth]

How can an inanimate object be evil?

 

[holy king]

http://cursedobjects.com/

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not all laws or changes should be made. But when the only reason you really have to oppose such changes other than your own personal beliefs is because you think some guys who have been dead 200 years wouldn't like it, well, you're just being a jerk.

Absolutely. It's one thing to respect those who came before and started things off. It's another thing to set them up as icons to be catered to long after they're dead and don't care anymore.

Amending formulas should be difficult, but doable if the situation truly warrants it. Canada's amending formula says in part that 7 out of the 10 provinces have to agree. This is why we very likely won't have Senate reform any decade soon, even though our Prime Minister preached and promised it years ago, as did his Reform/Alliance colleagues, from the get-go. It's nigh-impossible to get 7 out of 10 provinces to agree on anything, let alone something as important as how the country is governed.

 

[warpus]

The American constitution is very old (200 years?) and is bound to be incredibly out of date. I say "bound to be" because I haven't read through the thing.

Most countries adopt new constitutions instead of holding onto something that incredibly old, no? If not, you'd need a way to be able to make changes to it a bit more easily than how it is done now.

Don't Americans want a constitution to represent the times rather than an outdated document written over 200 years ago? That'd make sense, no? I realize that due to the bi-polar nature of American politics, it might be impossible for to agree what should go in a new constitution, but.. Why would anyone want such an old document at the foundation of the country?

 

[bhsup]

Not evil

Just horribly out-dated and inflexible.

Don't like something in it? Amend it. It's totally flexible.

it's cult object, not necessarily evil.

So you don't think a society should be based on law? What then, should be the foundation of a society? You cannot say a society should be based on law, but then not actually adhere to the law.

The American constitution is very old (200 years?) and is bound to be incredibly out of date. I say "bound to be" because I haven't read through the thing.

Amendments. It IS easy. Just get Congress to pass it, then have 3/4th of the States pass it. Really, if you cannot get that many States to pass a change to the supreme law of our land, then it clearly doesn't warrant the change.

Also, that's not the only way. States can force Congress to call a Constitutional convention, which can then submit amendments to the States.

The reason there haven't been any amendments lately is not because it is too hard, but simply because there is not sufficient desire to have one, which obviously means enough folks like the Constitution the way it is that it shouldn't be changed.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Why would anyone want such an old document at the foundation of the country?

Because many Americans idolize the Founding Fathers as national visionaries who laid down an immutable, perfect and deity-ordained ideal of the United States. Maybe this was just my poorly-remembered experience of early childhood education, but American history is taught from an early age as a glorious struggle by the weak and downtrodden against the evil, fairy-tale king in the tower of Great Britain, who unjustly held the princess of the American colonies in a dark dungeon guarded by the dragon of mercantilism, wherein the Founding Fathers rode in on their shining steed and saved Lady America from the evil King George, so naturally that kind of heroic infallibility ought to be maintained in government, too. It's an unrealistic perspective, and it's unfortunately very influential.

There's also the bit where the states' rights concessions the people who wrote the Constitution had to make to keep the Union together serves contemporary political interests.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Amendments. It IS easy. Just get Congress to pass it, then have 3/4th of the States pass it. Really, if you cannot get that many States to pass a change to the supreme law of our land, then it clearly doesn't warrant the change.

Also, that's not the only way. States can force Congress to call a Constitutional convention, which can then submit amendments to the States.

The reason there haven't been any amendments lately is not because it is too hard, but simply because there is not sufficient desire to have one, which obviously means enough folks like the Constitution the way it is that it shouldn't be changed.

I have to disagree with your assertion that the process IS easy. I'm not saying it should be easy necessarily, rather, that it ISN'T.

Anywhoo, as I said before, I don't have a problem with the Constitution aside from the whole supermajority thing, maybe a few other nitpicky things like the electoral college. I just get sick of hearing people claim it's an infallable document that anticipated every change in the country that's happened since it was written. It can get kind of silly.

 

[bhsup]

So for you people going on about the Constitution being outmoded, what exactly do you think is in it that hasn't yet been amended already that is outmoded? I guarantee you, whatever topic you bring up that you think is outmoded will get you a heated debate over (*), which really means it isn't ready to be changed yet.

(*) - and I mean in America, not here in CFC where the political landscape is nothing like that of America.

 

[Ailedhoo]

In Britain we lack a constituion. While this may mean we lack a soilid note that can be fitted into a single book we do have the advantage of a lack of inflexibility and a system that evolves with the times then simply keep to a document made to benefit the period it was written. However the disadvantages of lacking a consition is to be considered in terms of the symbolism. Just consideration.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In Britain we lack a constituion. While this may mean we lack a soilid note that can be fitted into a single book we do have the advantage of a lack of inflexibility and a system that evolves with the times then simply keep to a document made to benefit the period it was written. However the disadvantages of lacking a consition is to be considered in terms of the symbolism. Just consideration.

True story. I would like to note, however, that our Constitution has been amended, will continue to be and that it is under constant reinterpretation by the courts. I'm not saying it isn't flawed or that it is quick to change. Rather there are a group of people who almost worship it and somehow can read the thoughts of dead men from long ago and use that to justify untenable or unreasonable positions.

Not that all of the positions they have are untenable or unreasonable. They just tend to shout 'But the Founding Fathers!' loud enough to discredit themselves in my eyes at least.

Edit: I'm having trouble thinking of an issue where the intent of the Founders comes into play though. So maybe it's just my perception that is off.