Is the US constitution evil?

[GhostWriter16]

The constitution is good, it is the courts that ignore its plain meaning for their own agenda that are evil. See Wickard v Filburn.

Sometimes I think the AoC would, in fact, be better, however. I'm ultimately divided between the few occasions where the Feds have stopped the states from oppressing people, and the many, many times where our Federal government has been completely against the amendment procedure.

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.

What it means is that you don't have rights, but only privleges to be granted and taken away at the whim of the electorate.

Its an absolutely terrible system IMO.

So I guess everything I posted about Judicial Review is irrelevant then?

It should be inflexible as it is, given Judicial Review.

Judicial Review is a good thing in theory, even if the Supreme Court did make it up. Its still a necessary check and balance on the system. However, rather than "Interpreting" open ended amendments such as the ninth, the Supreme Court far more often becomes a tool to legitimatize Federal tyranny.

I'd rather deal with the "inflexibility" of the constitution than have the foundation of my rights be afloat in the stream of popular opinion.\

Imagine: 1 day after 9/11 I start to circulate a petition demanding the banning of Islam, the torching of all Mosques, and the mass arrest of Muslims. Anyone want to guess the odds of success on that little crusade if we had no constitution?

I don't know if 50% of people were THAT Islamophobic

However, we would not see the kind of religious and political freedom we have today. Something you and I both know is the fact that no country on the planet is as pro-free speech as we are. I think that this is part of the reason why

That said, its honestly TOO flexible, as it stands. They've been showing us the fact time and time again since the beginning of this century.

 

[Truronian]

What it means is that you don't have rights, but only privleges to be granted and taken away at the whim of the electorate.

Its an absolutely terrible system IMO.

We lack rights? That's an untrue statement G W.

 

[GhostWriter16]

International treaties don't matter, just look at China for goodness sakes.

Note what I am not claiming. I don't approve of European values overall, but I am not claiming that you guys are living in some kind of secret dictatorship or something. What I am saying is that your rights are much more subject to the whims of the majority than ours are. In your country, if 51% of people actually wanted a dictatorship, you'd probably get one. Not here.

 

[Truronian]

International treaties don't matter, just look at China for goodness sakes.

Note what I am not claiming. I don't approve of European values overall, but I am not claiming that you guys are living in some kind of secret dictatorship or something. What I am saying is that your rights are much more subject to the whims of the majority than ours are. In your country, if 51% of people actually wanted a dictatorship, you'd probably get one. Not here.

Those are not all international treaties and those that are do matter, just look a China.

You're going to need to explain how the bolded statement would come to pass, especially given that you've never demonstrated any knowledge of the workings of the UK political system. You seem to have started with the presumption that the US constitution system must be better and then worked backwards; it's the only explanation I can come up with for such absurd claims.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, I guess you have the Queen as a last resort, but only rarely.

I'm not the most knowledgeable of the English system. I do know, however, that you really only have one branch of government (Parliament) and that there aren't any real restrictions on what they can do. Or at least, that's what I've heard anyway.

I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong.

 

[Leoreth]

International treaties don't matter, just look at China for goodness sakes.

Note what I am not claiming. I don't approve of European values overall, but I am not claiming that you guys are living in some kind of secret dictatorship or something. What I am saying is that your rights are much more subject to the whims of the majority than ours are. In your country, if 51% of people actually wanted a dictatorship, you'd probably get one. Not here.

If Congress and 3/4 of the states actually wanted a dictatorship, you'd probably get one.

How high does the arbitrary threshold have to be so that the magical immunity to dictatorship appears?

Also, at the idea that you don't have rights unless you write them down on what in the end is also only a piece of paper that can easily be ignored as soon as the majority would choose to do so.

And finally, I like your mental jump from the British political model to "European values". The German constitution for example guarantees its status as a federal and democratic republic. Oh, and we know from our own history that just having a democratic constitution that "guarantees" certain rights doesn't protect you from dictatorship. Gee, sometimes I don't know which part of your posts I want to object to first.

 

[Truronian]

Well, I guess you have the Queen as a last resort, but only rarely.

I'm not the most knowledgeable of the English system. I do know, however, that you really only have one branch of government (Parliament) and that there aren't any real restrictions on what they can do. Or at least, that's what I've heard anyway.

I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong.

And yet you feel perfectly decrying it as 'absolutely terrible'.

Maybe the UK system is better than the US one; maybe it's worse. If you only know about one of those two systems, you're hardly in a position to compare the two GW.

 

[Core Imposter]

First: ponies. What is with you and ponies? Your posts have more mention of ponies then Something Awful mock threads on issues of bronies.

Second: are you arguring for a dictatorship? I am just saying... "people cannot look after themselves" does lead to... questionable reasoning. Especilly when you end with "people are evil!" which realy is igorant of the general greyness and of the flexible of people. You in the past claimed to represent "standing on two feat" but now go against your entire frame arguments by your post.

Third: if we cannot govern ourselfs then why have we managed to gain to the position where we are now communicating with each other via a set of networks and other forms of communicative signalling that we call the internet? Just questioning.

Fourth: this is on your obession with ponies again but could you define please? All your "ponies" statement is doing is... making one question on the nature of your... posts.

Free ponies= benefits from the government that are either paid for by the taxpayer base, or funded by borrowing or outright money printing. These range from Sandra Fluke's recreational sex subsidy to subsidies to oil companies. Free ponies are things that are often taken as entitlements but are things we have no right to expect the taxpayer to pay for. And they are not free.

I use it as a term of ridicule because both the government and the people have delved into idiocy to think that we can continue to borrow and print and never face the consequences. There is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as a free pony. The piper must be paid. But we all want to ride the free pony and hope that the herd lasts as long as we are alive. Or maybe we just think in the short term, instant gratification. One infamous economist, when challenged on his preposterous theories, said, "In the long run we are all dead."

The ponies have already run a long way. When they topple over it will be on top of us all.

Did you ever stop to think what would happen if all government programs had to be paid for by a taxation system that everyone had to pay into? Why, we'd get what we need and not what we want. And we wouldn't be looking at inevitable national bankruptcy.

I have popcorn and will enjoy throwing back and watching everyone saddle up those ponies and try to outrun the tidal wave of ruin that lies just around the bend.

Free ponies, free ponies, free ponies for all.

The next American Republic will be a Christian conservative republic. Because only we will have the courage to pick up the pieces, the strength to bear the burden, the common sense and wisdom to find the way, and the character to pay the price without asking "What's in it for me?".

 

[Leoreth]

The next American Republic will be a Christian conservative republic.

It's always nice to have fancy name for the dictatorship you want to build.

 

[History_Buff]

Sounds suspiciously like the Bill of Rights, wonder why?
Oh yeah, you took the idea from us.

Oh there's certainly some inheritance there. The difference being that ours was written in 1982, and is a little bit more up to date.

 

[duckstab]

Also, at the idea that you don't have rights unless you write them down on what in the end is also only a piece of paper that can easily be ignored as soon as the majority would choose to do so.

Exactly, if a sufficiently charismatic leader were to assume dictatorial powers in the U.S. and they had the backing of the military, Congress and the Supreme Court could rant all they wanted and it wouldn't change a thing.

I don't see how such a worst-case scenario would play out that differently in Britain, even though it lacks a written constitution.

The only real protection any nation has against totalitarianism is a strong and living democratic tradition being carried from generation to generation. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't even the Soviet Union have a written constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech?

 

[Joecoolyo]

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.

Here, give it a read, it's literally only two pages long. Amendments 1-10, and Amendments 11-27. It will take you 5 minutes.

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?

I really hate it act as if it's remained unchanged for 200 years and call it "old and outdated". It isn't. After the first 10 amendments that were added in its founding year, it's been amended 16 times. The most recent one being in 1992, 10 years after your Canadian constitution was rewritten.

And besides, if you give it a read, you'll realize how general and unspecific it really is (which is why you're constantly getting debates in the Supreme Court at what exactly is meant by the certain amendments). This means that it really hasn't aged or antiquated at all, unless you think banning of soldier quartering, or forcing separation of Church and State are "antiquated" ideas.

EDIT: Hell, doing some quick math, on average the Constitution is changed every 11 years. How can that be outdated?

 

[GhostWriter16]

"Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution

 

[Joecoolyo]

"Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution

Congress isn't allowed to establish a state religion; pretty separate if you ask me.

 

[duckstab]

"Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution

Well, since we're being literal, I can't find the words "secession is legal" anywhere either.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Congress isn't allowed to establish a state religion; pretty separate if you ask me.

I don't disagree with you, but the term still ISN'T there.

The idea, admittedly, is depending on how you define it, implied.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I don't disagree with you, but the term still ISN'T there.

The idea, admittedly, is depending on how you define it, implied.

Oh, well, you see, it never says in the Constitution you shouldn't murder. It just guarantees provision for the right to life. It's just implied.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Actually , the constitution doesn't give an explicit right to life either

Its not the kind of thing "Strict constructionism" is really worried about, but technically murder statues should be state level

 

[Lord of Elves]

Actually , the constitution doesn't give an explicit right to life either

Its not the kind of thing "Strict constructionism" is really worried about, but technically murder statues should be state level

The Constitution guarantees, in the Bill of Rights, all the various "inalienable rights". If we didn't have a "federal right to life" how could we take that right to life away from traitors and other federal criminals?

 

[GhostWriter16]

"Treason" is crap and should be amended out of the constitution. Either you committed murder, or some other serious crime, or you didn't.

That said, its not so bad the way the constitution ACTUALLY says it, which notably, excludes the Confederacy