Is the US constitution evil?

[GoodSarmatian]

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

You know, you could have responded to my obvious trolling in the respective thread instead of opening a new one...

Not evil

Just horribly out-dated and inflexible.

I don't know if it's inflexible, but it is out of date and too single minded about 'freedom'. It's the result of a culture that thinks the government is out to get them, as if 'the government' was still dominated by a king on a very far away island instead of a collective of democratically elected representatives who can be impeached and held accountable for their actions.
Not evil but not really in line with my values. I very much prefer the German constitution.

 

[bhsup]

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.

Well no, that's.... yeah, that is silly. They anticipated change that they could not predict by including the amendment process. And it also worked out for things that were just bone-headed mistakes that they got wrong right off the bat.

We're actually right now going through a LONG drought period of no amendments. The last one passed, the 27th, was actually proposed waaaaaaaay back with the other 10 Bill of Rights. It's just that it took this long for the 3/4th of the States to approve it. That usually won't happen anymore as most modern proposed amendments have a clause written into them that invalidate them if not approved within 7 years. The last "modern" amendment that passed, the 26th (setting voting age to 18 nationwide) was adopted in 1971. We've gone 41 years without an amendment.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You know, you could have responded to my obvious trolling in the respective thread instead of opening a new one...



I don't know if it's inflexible, but it is out of date and too single minded about 'freedom'. It's the result of a culture that thinks the government is out to get them, as if 'the government' was still dominated by a king on a very far away island instead of a collective of democratically elected representatives who can be impeached and held accountable for their actions.
Not evil but not really in line with my values. I very much prefer the German constitution.

I wouldn't go that far though. People here desire to keep as much government local as possible.

Part of this can be chalked up to geography. We have a continent spanning country and the regional variations are vast. Plus, because of the way our Federal system is set up and intended to work from the beginning, people have good reason to complain about an overreaching Federal government.

Major problems arise when the patchwork of regional solutions fail to meet the challenge of the problems they are supposed to address. Take our healthcare system, Pre-Obamacare; or the current absymal state of K-12 (kindergarten through secondary education) in the US. The regional solutions didn't and don't work, thus the need for Obamacare and the Common Core curriculum (the former is a federal solution, the latter a state solution where most of the states got together to put their curriculums in line with one another).

Our national character is also highly individualistic, to the point that we by and large want to leave as many 'freedoms' and individual choice up to individuals as possible. Therefore, we reached a federal solution that fits us - and not merely as a reaction to King George.

Well no, that's.... yeah, that is silly. They anticipated change that they could not predict by including the amendment process. And it also worked out for things that were just bone-headed mistakes that they got wrong right off the bat.

We're actually right now going through a LONG drought period of no amendments. The last one passed, the 27th, was actually proposed waaaaaaaay back with the other 10 Bill of Rights. It's just that it took this long for the 3/4th of the States to approve it. That usually won't happen anymore as most modern proposed amendments have a clause written into them that invalidate them if not approved within 7 years. The last "modern" amendment that passed, the 26th (setting voting age to 18 nationwide) was adopted in 1971. We've gone 41 years without an amendment.

Right, we do have that amendment process that was put in at the outset. It just doesn't do any good when the salient reason some people can come up with to avoid an amendment (or Supreme Court decision for that matter) is because the founders were perfect, the Constitution is perfect. As I said though, I may be mistaken as I can't really think of a debate where this was the case; it may merely be my perception.

I was thinking about the 'amendment drought' as well - it is a bit unusual. But I tend to agree with you that this is merely because an amendment isn't needed. Well, I do believe a modern ERA amendment is needed, but other than that, I'm not sure of any other changes that are needed. Oh, the supermajority thing needs to be written out.

 

[warpus]

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.

I've just heard that it's an incredibly slow and cumbersome process.

We got a new, modern constitution in Canada in 1982. Isn't that better than having one outdated document and a list amendments?

I mean, in terms of version history the American way is awesome, but...

 

[WindFish]

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

Not really, it requires 2/3 majority of the senate, 2/3 majority of the congress and 2/3 of the states legislatures.

That doesn't really fit the definition of "flexible".

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not really, it requires 2/3 majority of the senate, 2/3 majority of the congress and 2/3 of the states legislatures.

That doesn't really fit the definition of "flexible".

Or a court ruling, which we rely on much more. The trick is that we don't have to actually amend the Constitution to change its' interpretation. The Supreme Court (and the other courts to a less 'final' degree) do this quite a bit.

I've just heard that it's an incredibly slow and cumbersome process.

We got a new, modern constitution in Canada in 1982. Isn't that better than having one outdated document and a list amendments?

I mean, in terms of version history the American way is awesome, but...

It's not as outdated as it's birthdate might suggest because of all the court rulings. They roll with the times. Think of 'separate but equal' (not in the constitution, but decreed by a court to be OK) that was later ruled to be unconsitutional by Brown v Board of Education.

I'm not saying that separate but equal was ever a good thing, but at the time it happened, most people in this country not only supported it, but felt it was inherently right. Eventually, morality caught up to the courts and they struck it down, even though most people still supported it.

I wish it had been banned to begin with, but the point is, our Constitution (or rather the interpretation thereof) can and does change radically in a short amount of time thanks to our Judicial Review process.

Look what happened with the Obamacare ruling: overnight something that most people thought was clearly unconstitutional was proven to be in fact, constitutional. The Constitution itself is silent on health care,seperate but equal and a whole host of other issues that the courts tackle all the time, btw.

 

[bhsup]

I've just heard that it's an incredibly slow and cumbersome process.

We got a new, modern constitution in Canada in 1982. Isn't that better than having one outdated document and a list amendments?

I mean, in terms of version history the American way is awesome, but...

Eh, either, but you'd have to call a Constitutional Convention for that anyway and I really cannot imagine anyone accepting scrapping ours, so amendments.

Not really, it requires 2/3 majority of the senate, 2/3 majority of the congress and 2/3 of the states legislatures.

That doesn't really fit the definition of "flexible".

3/4th of the States, not 2/3rds. And rightfully so. Amendments shouldn't be done on the whim of 50% majority today that may change tomorrow.

 

[WindFish]

3/4th of the States, not 2/3rds. And rightfully so. Amendments shouldn't be done on the whim of 50% majority today that may change tomorrow.

Well, that makes it more inflexible.

Imo, it should be 60/40 senate, 60/40 house 60/40 popular vote.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, that makes it more inflexible.

Imo, it should be 60/40 senate, 60/40 house 60/40 popular vote.

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

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

 

[Core Imposter]

We have a tendency to inflate our understanding of affairs versus the understanding that the founders had because, after all, science has advanced so far since then and far more people around the world are literate.

We also tend to hold ourselves more moral and as ethics has bloomed in some ways, superior there as well.

I doubt its true.

I also doubt that the constitution was written as it was soley as a result of the political necessities. Those were no doubt contributing factors but there was, I believe, a more profound issue.

The issue was how to further enshine liberty within the state while still retarding the devolvement toward populist extremes that had already at that time been associated with the democratic process.

Now some of you think you would be well served if all issues were determined by a one person, one vote, majority rule scheme. Thats understandable. We all want to have as much power as the next guy. If not more.

But history, common sense, and science shows clearly that there are big problems with that.

Some have said that the constitution should be more easily changed. Well, it can be changed. We have an app for that. Its called a constitutional amendment and its been done many times.

In any reasonable conversation about the constitution one fact has to be stipulated. Human beings are, in general, unable to govern themselves. We can't govern our own lives very well. Just look around you. In America, we have a population that is pretty much ignorant. You can, you know, be literate and still be ignorant. We also have a whole educated class that is plainly not smart. You can find plenty of people with doctorates that are just idiots. Education does not necessarily make one smarter.

We are also subject to passions and poor judgement. Allowing people to handle their own affairs is a treacherous prospect.

Recognizing that the founders penned a document designed to limit the power of the government on the people while simultaneously limiting the power of people on the government. Splendid work in my view.

Not that the Republic will not fail in the end, it has already, as we are on version x.xx right now. But the framework has limited the damage we have been able to do to one another about as well as could be in my opinion.

Any political system in which citizens can barter their votes for free ponies is going to implode from time to time. Its not the Constitution, but people, that are evil.

 

[warpus]

Eh, either, but you'd have to call a Constitutional Convention for that anyway and I really cannot imagine anyone accepting scrapping ours, so amendments.

You're commenting on the logistics on getting it done though, and I'm approaching it from a "what would be better?" pov.

Obviously logistics are important, but my point didn't touch on that at all.

 

[Ailedhoo]

We have a tendency to inflate our understanding of affairs versus the understanding that the founders had because, after all, science has advanced so far since then and far more people around the world are literate.

We also tend to hold ourselves more moral and as ethics has bloomed in some ways, superior there as well.

I doubt its true.

I also doubt that the constitution was written as it was soley as a result of the political necessities. Those were no doubt contributing factors but there was, I believe, a more profound issue.

The issue was how to further enshine liberty within the state while still retarding the devolvement toward populist extremes that had already at that time been associated with the democratic process.

Now some of you think you would be well served if all issues were determined by a one person, one vote, majority rule scheme. Thats understandable. We all want to have as much power as the next guy. If not more.

But history, common sense, and science shows clearly that there are big problems with that.

Some have said that the constitution should be more easily changed. Well, it can be changed. We have an app for that. Its called a constitutional amendment and its been done many times.

In any reasonable conversation about the constitution one fact has to be stipulated. Human beings are, in general, unable to govern themselves. We can't govern our own lives very well. Just look around you. In America, we have a population that is pretty much ignorant. You can, you know, be literate and still be ignorant. We also have a whole educated class that is plainly not smart. You can find plenty of people with doctorates that are just idiots. Education does not necessarily make one smarter.

We are also subject to passions and poor judgement. Allowing people to handle their own affairs is a treacherous prospect.

Recognizing that the founders penned a document designed to limit the power of the government on the people while simultaneously limiting the power of people on the government. Splendid work in my view.

Not that the Republic will not fail in the end, it has already, as we are on version x.xx right now. But the framework has limited the damage we have been able to do to one another about as well as could be in my opinion.

Any political system in which citizens can barter their votes for free ponies is going to implode from time to time. Its not the Constitution, but people, that are evil.

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.

 

[AlpsStranger]

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?

 

[sophie]

I really like our constitution. I like the checks and balances, I like the amendment process, I like that the language was left intentionally vague so that the supreme court could interpret it so it could change with the times. The fact that it has survived this long, and that the country hasn't completely collapsed in on itself (ignoring one notable hiccup) is, I think, a testament to its strength.

 

[holy king]

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.

what i said is that the us constitution is an object of worship.

what i did not say is that a society should not be based on law.

 

[AlpsStranger]

As for the liberals suggesting that we make a "modern" constitution: I'll literally flee the country if this process starts.

Can you imagine the kind of pure sewage both sides would dump into such a document in this day and age? I think I could rest easier without Dominionism written into the constitution, and I'm sure many Christians would rest easier without many things I like enshrined in the constitution.

 

[History_Buff]

Just adopt the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and be done with it. It has it's flaws, but it's much better than your current document.

 

[JollyRoger]

I like the current amendment process where a bunch of liberal law professors write a bunch of law review articles that eventually convince the Supreme Court to amend the meaning.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Just adopt the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and be done with it. It has it's flaws, but it's much better than your current document.

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

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I like it, but I'd prefer to have Charlie Sheen's