NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?

Well it was/is fairly original isn't it?

By the fact that it was first time a state wrote down the basic ideals behind it in one document, rather then relying on the ad hoc approach still used here in Britian.

Could be wrong about that though.

Also, which Americans claim that the concepts you name in you OP are of American origin?

It's now the most famous constitution in the world, that's why. All those stupid amendments about gun ownership etc. etc. That's why it gets so much media coverage - and thus more popularity.

Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?

1. Not all Americans think this way. :rolleyes:

2. You partially answered the question yourself -- codified.

3. There are several aspects of the US Constitution that are relatively unique and/or original for the time.

4. There are some significant differences between the concrete codification of an idea in the US Constitution and the general concepts that may be found in European predecessors.

5. Be sure you get your timeline straight on what ideas appeared where first.

Have fun. :)

1. Not all Americans think this way. :rolleyes:

2. You partially answered the question yourself -- codified.

3. There are several aspects of the US Constitution that are relatively unique and/or original for the time.

4. There are some significant differences between the concrete codification of an idea in the US Constitution and the general concepts that may be found in European predecessors.

5. Be sure you get your timeline straight on what ideas appeared where first.

Have fun. :)For those of you who've forgotten, the French Revolution was after the American Revolution and did not exactly inspire it.

The AR was inspired by British philosophy -- a fellow named Locke I think -- and the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights (English), etc.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

1. Not all Americans think this way. :rolleyes:

2. You partially answered the question yourself -- codified.

3. There are several aspects of the US Constitution that are relatively unique and/or original for the time.

4. There are some significant differences between the concrete codification of an idea in the US Constitution and the general concepts that may be found in European predecessors.

5. Be sure you get your timeline straight on what ideas appeared where first.

Have fun. :)

Well I'm sure the Magna Carta came before the American Constitution, as did the French idea of 'liberte'. Perhaps you should address your chronological misconceptions.

For those of you who've forgotten, the French Revolution was after the American Revolution and did not exactly inspire it.

The AR was inspired by British philosophy -- a fellow named Locke I think -- and the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights (English), etc.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Yep, Locke and also Smith as well. Plus, the French Revolution came afterwards but the ideas of liberte etc. came beforehand.

Well it was/is fairly original isn't it?

By the fact that it was first time a state wrote down the basic ideals behind it in one document, rather then relying on the ad hoc approach still used here in Britian.

Could be wrong about that though.

Also, which Americans claim that the concepts you name in you OP are of American origin?

Well, I've caught television shows and discussions and lectures that carry the pretense of these ideas being American in origin. Plus, it was the first written constitution but it was not the first constitution with written elements. So not quite as original as one might think. There's still a great deal of ad hoc and convention in the American system, which is a good thing because it allows greater development. That's why some theorists the British constitution is probably the most effective guardian of rights in the world, the conventions and principles are so heavily entrenched in society that they're more 'sacred' than anything written down. That is of course subject to interpretation.

Well I'm sure the Magna Carta came before the American Constitution, as did the French idea of 'liberte'. Perhaps you should address your chronological misconceptions.

<sigh>

Yes, I must be ignorant. After all, I am an American.

Oh, what is this? What are these strange books on the shelf by my elbow. Locke's Second Treatise, Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration, Hobbes' Leviathan, Mill's Utilitarianism, Mill's On Liberty, and Rouseau's Social Contract.

I am well aware of the Magna Carta, thank you.

As well as the French Revolution (which can after the American Revolution) and its underlying ideals.

Funny the things you learn when you get degrees in political science, philosophy, and law.

Care to actually address my points?

75% of Americans claim to be irish

The Magna Carta wasn't actually that important. It gave a few rights to nobles. Why is it such a big deal? We don't even have nobles nowadays.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

<sigh>

Yes, I must be ignorant. After all, I am an American.

Oh, what is this? What are these strange books on the shelf by my elbow. Locke's Second Treatise, Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration, Hobbes' Leviathan, Mill's Utilitarianism, Mill's On Liberty, and Rouseau's Social Contract.

I am well aware of the Magna Carta, thank you.

As well as the French Revolution (which can after the American Revolution) and its underlying ideals.

Funny the things you learn when you get degrees in political science, philosophy, and law.

Care to actually address my points?

Yes, it is. Of course, it's very evident that you have not earned these degrees yourself. If you have, your chronology is still muddled. Why did you floor the idea that these principles were developed afted the United States Constitution was drafted? The Magna Carta is ancient, and the British philosophers you mentioned along with Smith were the major source of American constitutional principle (their ideas came along BEFOREHAND). Just because the French revolution precipitated after the American Constitution was drafted does not discount the possibility that those ideas were gestating long beforehand, which they were.

75% of Americans claim to be irish

So true.

Oh, what is this? What are these strange books on the shelf by my elbow. Locke's Second Treatise, Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration, Hobbes' Leviathan, Mill's Utilitarianism, Mill's On Liberty, and Rouseau's Social Contract.


This explains your political bias. I finally see why you have such an idealised view of human society. Where are Grotius, Hume, Smith, Berkley, Salisbury and the rest of the non utopians. Hobbes needs a little support here.

And a question as to your points. What real difference does explicit codification make? A constitution only really carries force so far as it fits the culture to which it is applied. Where it is not appropriate, having a piece of paper that lists foreign concepts does nothing whatsoever. The US constitution, for example, would not work in India, given that there are huge cultural clashes between the document and the way society there functions. Explicitly codifying those rules that are already implicit in the society really does nothing of any great use, as far as I can see.

I personally believe that an uncodified consitution is superior. Flexible, organic, and usually convention is a far greater check. As Alien suggested, the cultural impetus to abide by the rules is usually far greater than any formally codified.

Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?I'm an American and I'm well aware that the basis for the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution were based on the 'rights of Englishmen". Even the right to keep and bear arms was based on English tradition. I'm not sure why other Americans don't know about this. II'm sure it has something to do with the poor quality of our government-run education system.

Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?


Without qualification, I agree (truly) with The Cat-Tribe on this issue.

The concepts of freedom that are articulated in the US Constitution existed in the hearts and minds of patriots long before the Magna Carta, the Code of Hammurabi, or papyrus. None of these concepts are uniquely British or French.

The Constitution is "something so original" .... ask King George.

Yes, it is. Of course, it's very evident that you have not earned these degrees yourself. If you have, your chronology is still muddled. Why did you floor the idea that these principles were developed afted the United States Constitution was drafted? The Magna Carta is ancient, and the British philosophers you mentioned along with Smith were the major source of American constitutional principle (their ideas came along BEFOREHAND). Just because the French revolution precipitated after the American Constitution was drafted does not discount the possibility that those ideas were gestating long beforehand, which they were.

You attribute a lot of inane things to me that I did not say.

I said:

Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?

1. Not all Americans think this way. :rolleyes:

2. You partially answered the question yourself -- codified.

3. There are several aspects of the US Constitution that are relatively unique and/or original for the time.

4. There are some significant differences between the concrete codification of an idea in the US Constitution and the general concepts that may be found in European predecessors.

5. Be sure you get your timeline straight on what ideas appeared where first.

Have fun. :)

I did not suggest that all of the ideas in the Constitution were original. To the contrary, I suggested some of them were original concepts to be actually implemented and/or codified.

Are you going to seriously argue every principle of the US Constitution appeared first in the Magna Carta?

Rather than question my intelligence and scholarship, perhaps you should work on reading comprehension.

Without qualification, I agree (truly) with The Cat-Tribe on this issue.

Oh Lordy, does this mean the Apocalypse? I need a haircut! :D

This explains your political bias. I finally see why you have such an idealised view of human society. Where are Grotius, Hume, Smith, Berkley, Salisbury and the rest of the non utopians. Hobbes needs a little support here.

:D

I could list all the philosophical works I have in my library (not to mention those I have studied). Have you got a while? ;)

And a question as to your points. What real difference does explicit codification make? A constitution only really carries force so far as it fits the culture to which it is applied. Where it is not appropriate, having a piece of paper that lists foreign concepts does nothing whatsoever. The US constitution, for example, would not work in India, given that there are huge cultural clashes between the document and the way society there functions. Explicitly codifying those rules that are already implicit in the society really does nothing of any great use, as far as I can see.

Did I say codification was necessarily superior?

Or did I say it was one way in which the US Constitution was unique at the time?

And your question rather begs the point. In a culture to which the concepts of the Constitution would be foreign, an uncodified constitution would be worse, yes?

Cat-Tribe. Before perpetuating the ad hominem attacks, I suggest you review yourself what has actually been posted.

3. There are several aspects of the US Constitution that are relatively unique and/or original for the time.


I am going to disregard the term 'relatively' given that I assume that you know as well as I do that it can not apply to unique or original any more than it can to pregnant or dead.

This was challenged (in an admittedly over personal way)
Why did you floor the idea that these principles were developed afted the United States Constitution was drafted?

Everyman does not state all the principles either, he simply challenges your claim rather clumsily, but then not everyone has the benefit of legal/philosophical training in constructing their points. There is an obligation on you CT to show which points of the constitution were original and unique, after all you caimed these existed.

Without qualification, I agree (truly) with The Cat-Tribe on this issue.

The concepts of freedom that are articulated in the US Constitution existed in the hearts and minds of patriots long before the Magna Carta, the Code of Hammurabi, or papyrus. None of these concepts are uniquely British or French.

The Constitution is "something so original" .... ask King George.

Mad King George? Only a madman would agree it was something so original. Plus, patriots? Before papyrus? I don't think there were really nations so patriotism was an immaterial belief.

Oh Lordy, does this mean the Apocalypse? I need a haircut! :D


My wife has reminded me that respectful discourse is the spoonful of sugar that helps folks swallow otherwise distasteful ideas.

[/QUOTE]
Everyman does not state all the principles either, he simply challenges your claim rather clumsily, but then not everyone has the benefit of legal/philosophical training in constructing their points. There is an obligation on you CT to show which points of the constitution were original and unique, after all you caimed these existed.[/QUOTE]

Clumsily? I just don't have the time to enscribe them all on an internet forum. Woe is me.

Codification is cool. You now the constitution of your country, you can look it up everytime you like too and nobody can deny its existence.

:D

I could list all the philosophical works I have in my library (not to mention those I have studied). Have you got a while? ;)
Yes I have, but the point was the rather utopian selection of works you cited, not the presence or absence of the works on a bookshelf. I also happen to have those works in my library, but I would have tried to be a little more balanced on the concept of human nature in the list I presented.



Did I say codification was necessarily superior?

Or did I say it was one way in which the US Constitution was unique at the time?

And your question rather begs the point. In a culture to which the concepts of the Constitution would be foreign, an uncodified constitution would be worse, yes?
Did I imply that codification was superior? No I did not. You were explicit in finding the codification a significant point.

2. You partially answered the question yourself -- codified.

I asked how this codification made any difference?

What real difference does explicit codification make?

Then you decide that this question somehow implies an attack on the superiority of a codified constitution. (Straw man methinks).

As to begging the question, a non codified constitution in a foreign culture is simply a contradiction in terms. I was only making the point that the codification is actually irrelevant, as the constitution is cultural anyway. The culture derives, I hope you will agree, from the histories and traditions of the individual members/subjects/citizens of the country. Thus the US constitution clearly derives, in all meaningful respects from European traditions as only European stock had any influence on it at all.

Remember that the subject of this thread is:
Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?
And it was to this that you were replying. I challenged that codification was of any significance, in reality. Hence no question begging, just some misunderstanding on your part of what I my post meant.

Mad King George? Only a madman would agree it was something so original. Plus, patriots? Before papyrus? I don't think there were really nations so patriotism was an immaterial belief.


*There is a cave in a region of what we now call "Ethiopia"...it has a drawing of a gravely wounded man with a clenched fist raised defiantly in the air...the markings are believed by scholars to represent the cry "Freedom".

[*not actually a true story, but it makes my point.]


EDIT: typo

Everyman does not state all the principles either, he simply challenges your claim rather clumsily, but then not everyone has the benefit of legal/philosophical training in constructing their points. There is an obligation on you CT to show which points of the constitution were original and unique, after all you caimed these existed.

Clumsily? I just don't have the time to enscribe them all on an internet forum. Woe is me.

Don't take offence please. There is a tendency to attack the form of presentation at times, rather than the content on this forum. I was pushing for the content to be dealt with. (I too often post clumsily)

*There is a cave in a region of what we now call "Ethiopia"...it has a drawing of a gravely wounded man with a clenched fist raised defiantly in the air...the markings are believed by scholars to represent the cry "Freedom".

[*not actually a true story, but it makes my point.]


EDIT: typo

No it really doesn't...what does patriotism have to do with freedom? The Romans were patriotic but maintained vast hordes of slaves...your point is pointless. ;)

Mad King George? Only a madman would agree it was something so original. Plus, patriots? Before papyrus? I don't think there were really nations so patriotism was an immaterial belief.

King George was only mad for a few short periods during his life (apart from the Regency Period at the end of his reign) and is actually regarded to be one of the most politically active and consciencious monarchs to date. It his reign to which I would refer if I wanted to show someone how a true constitutional monarchy works - an equal triumvirate between monarch, the Commons and the Lords.

As such I would actually place George III very high up on the list of monarchs, next to Elizabeth I and Victoria.

I opted for uncodified, but there isn't a great deal to concern me between the two.

Why uncodified?

Because I don't trust the damn lawyers that seem to fill most of the government posts here not to take a codified constitution and find neat little loop holes. With an uncodified one the spirit of the constitution carries a little more weight.

But it really doesn't bother me too much.

Cat-Tribe. Before perpetuating the ad hominem attacks, I suggest you review yourself what has actually been posted.

My ad hominem attacks?

You must be kidding.


I am going to disregard the term 'relatively' given that I assume that you know as well as I do that it can not apply to unique or original any more than it can to pregnant or dead.

This was challenged (in an admittedly over personal way)

Actually "relatively unique" and "relatively original" are perfectly sensible and grammatically correct.

Do I really need to explain?


Everyman does not state all the principles either, he simply challenges your claim rather clumsily, but then not everyone has the benefit of legal/philosophical training in constructing their points. There is an obligation on you CT to show which points of the constitution were original and unique, after all you caimed these existed.

Why?

I honestly didn't think it would be a disputed point.

Are you and Everyman seriously contending that every aspect of the US Constitution was recognized previously in either the UK or French systems?

Can you find vague precursors to almost every aspect of the US Constitution in Western philosophy? Yes, of course.

But that is a different question.

How about these off the top of my head?
(1) Checks and balances between 3 seperate branches of government with neither legislative or executive supremacy.
(2) Federalism
(3) Strict separation of chuch and state
(4) An independent Supreme Court that is both the final arbiter of constitutionality and the highest court of appeal.

And, again, don't play a bait and switch. That some French and English philosophers may have espoused these ideas is not the same as saying they were not uniquely implemented in the US Constitution.

Mad King George? Only a madman would agree it was something so original. *snip*

How about William Gladstone?

As the British Constitution is the most subtle organism which has proceeded from the womb and long gestation of progressive history, so the American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

-- W. E. Gladstone

(not that I think this proves anything ;) )

My ad hominem attacks?

You must be kidding.
Go back and read for yourself. You have a habit of attacking the poster, not the post. I believe that you do not necessarily do this maliciously, but you do do it.



Actually "relatively unique" and "relatively original" are perfectly sensible and grammatically correct.

Do I really need to explain?
As unique means being one of a kind, I am intrigued how something can be relatively one of a kind. Either it is the only one, and hence unique, or it is not, and hence not unique. Equally original means the first. Now again either it is the first or it is not the first. The only way I can see that anything can be relatively original is if it arose at the same instant of time as another example. Perhaps you are just using the terms in a much looser sense. This would mean that unique stands for uncommon, and original stands for early. Then relatively could apply. But if this is the case, then the argument you made simply acknowledges that there existed precedents for these items in the US constitution, which is what the discussion is abbout, after all.

Why?
The burden of proof falls upon the person who claims something to be the case, at least that is how I understand reasonable debating to work. It avoids the "yes it is" "no it isn't" type argument. You claimed that some articles of the constitution were unique and original (I still withold the relatively until you can explain how it can apply) so it is up to you to show this.

I honestly didn't think it would be a disputed point. It is the point of the thread. How could you not think it would be disputed? :confused:

Are you and Everyman seriously contending that every aspect of the US Constitution was recognized previously in either the UK or French systems?

Can you find vague precursors to almost every aspect of the US Constitution in Western philosophy? Yes, of course.

But that is a different question.
No it is not a different question. It is the question being discussed here. The origin of the concepts that are simply codified in the US constitution is the subject matter, and the content of the original post.

How about these off the top of my head?
(1) Checks and balances between 3 seperate branches of government with neither legislative or executive supremacy.
(2) Federalism
(3) Strict separation of chuch and state
(4) An independent Supreme Court that is both the final arbiter of constitutionality and the highest court of appeal.
1. This existed in Athens, and is explicit in Plato.
2. Switzerland, ever heard of it. The model of federalism.
3. I have to research this. You may be right here. I do know that the concept exists in Hume, but it is not explicit.
4. Athens again, and this also depends upon your definition of 'independant' which is not a term that applies clearly to SCOTUS . But that is a separate discussion.

And, again, don't play a bait and switch. That some French and English philosophers may have espoused these ideas is not the same as saying they were not uniquely implemented in the US Constitution. The bait and switch game is being played by yourself. The discussion is within the terms laid out in the original post in this thread. This is the originality of the US constitution, the credit for the idea, the claim that these were ideas introduced to the world by the US constitution. Those are the terms of the discussion, like it or not. The espousal of the ideas is the significant point, not the explicit codification in a document.


EDIT: Re separation ofd the church and state. Investigating this, it appears that this does not actually exist in the US constitution. The first ammendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

which does not, by any means, separate the church from the state. It simply prevents religious persecution (in theory, not in practice if you look at the current situation). Where is this separation in the US constitution?

Yes I have, but the point was the rather utopian selection of works you cited, not the presence or absence of the works on a bookshelf. I also happen to have those works in my library, but I would have tried to be a little more balanced on the concept of human nature in the list I presented.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

I was not trying to present a list of philosophical works relevant to the concept of human nature.

I was merely trying to illustrate my familiarity with some of the very works of which others were implying I was ignorant.


Did I imply that codification was superior? No I did not. You were explicit in finding the codification a significant point.

I asked how this codification made any difference?

Then you decide that this question somehow implies an attack on the superiority of a codified constitution. (Straw man methinks).

I was explicit in finding the codification a point of novelty.

It was.

One of the most obviously original things about the US Constitution -- an aspect that Everyman recognized in his/her poll question -- is that it was a whole, written framework of government.

The Constitution sought to create a limited government that had no powers beyond that expressly granted to it by the people in the Constitution itself. This was a rather different approach.

The American precedent spread quickly to other nations. Belgium, Poland, France, Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile were among the first nations influenced by the US example to adopt a written constitution. Today, the UK is one of a handful of nations with an uncodified body of constitutional law.

One can argue about the relative merits of a codified versus an uncodified constitution, but it is rather silly to deny that the precedent of a written constitution was meaningless.

Are you really going to contend there is no difference between having a fairly clear written constitution and having an uncodified set of laws and traditions?

That the US Constitution was precedent setting in being a single, written government framework does not depend on whether a written consitution is superior to an unwritten one.

As to begging the question, a non codified constitution in a foreign culture is simply a contradiction in terms. I was only making the point that the codification is actually irrelevant, as the constitution is cultural anyway. The culture derives, I hope you will agree, from the histories and traditions of the individual members/subjects/citizens of the country. Thus the US constitution clearly derives, in all meaningful respects from European traditions as only European stock had any influence on it at all.

Actually, have you heard of the Iroquois Confederacy?

Regardless, there were lots of European traditions at the time. The Constitution was an agreement as to which particular aspects of these traditions would be followed.

That its aspects could be found in various traditions is different than saying those same aspects would be uniformly followed in the absence of the written document.

Remember that the subject of this thread is:



Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?
And it was to this that you were replying. I challenged that codification was of any significance, in reality. Hence no question begging, just some misunderstanding on your part of what I my post meant.

As you insist on misinterpreting it, let me explain my answers in more detail:

1. Not all Americans think this way.

Not all Americans think that the mentioned and other constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the U.S. Constitution. Many -- myself included -- recognize that the Constitution was a codification of ideas of various sources -- most of them English/European (and many of them recognized in the UK Constitution at the time.)

2. You partially answered the question yourself -- codified.

Explained ad naseum.

3. There are several aspects of the US Constitution that are relatively unique and/or original for the time.

Much of the US Constitution was already practiced in England or was a straightforward application of Western ideals.

But the Constitution was the first time several ideas were actually put into practice.

I've listed some of those aspects.

Feel free to show that every aspect of the US Constitution was already in practice elsewhere.

4. There are some significant differences between the concrete codification of an idea in the US Constitution and the general concepts that may be found in European predecessors.

No one has questioned this, have they?

Gooooaaal!

5. Be sure you get your timeline straight on what ideas appeared where first.

Some concepts like equal protection of the law were not clearly recognized in English law in 1789 -- but they weren't recognized in US law then either!

Several of the concepts behind both the UK Constitution and the US Constitution predate either system of government.

If you are going to claim every idea in the US Constitution is old hat, you had best be careful about the dates of when said idea was put in practice elsewhere versus when it was adopted in the US.

Clear enough?

Are you done with the sophistry?

Why is it that Americans seem to think that trial by jury, equal representation in front of the law and other basic constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the American Constitution? Almost of them are English, some of them french, in origin...just wondering why Americans regard the Constitution as something so original?

Misrepresentation, and mis-interpretation by the people.

Most Americans do not realize that the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, their individual state consitutions, and the Declaration of Independance were all products of codifying Common-Law principles (the bulk of the Common Law being 'uncodified' laws of social order). And our Courts system to this day still operates as a "Common Law Court"... Precedent is this concept of "codifications" in legal decisions, whereby the underlying principles of the Common Law are codified from a case which was placed in arbitrarion before the court. And it is this purpose of the court.

There are some in the US who thinks the United States legal system is a "civil-law" system, whereby the legislature makes laws, and the Courts may only enforce the laws the legislature makes. This is merely a view which is founded upon ignorance of American Jurisprudence, and its underlying English Common Law base. The purpose of Common Law courts is to interpret the law, the constitution, and the principles of Common Law, when deciding on a case. The decision forms "precedent"... That is, it forms the opinion of how the court is to operate in the future in similar cases. Precedent is a form of "law" as it exists before the courts.

They also don't recognize the Judiciary as a equal and seperate branch of government. They somehow think the Judiciary is "inferior" to the legislature (they are not, they are equal in power, and have the power to overturn legislative laws, if they violate other principles beyond the legislature [like the Constitution, or Common Law principles - aka PRECEDENT]).

You're right, all you have mentioned is part of the principels of the English Common Law... And it is out of ignorance, that many people in the United States do not realize it is not that unique.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:
I will give you the break, but not on the terms you want. You introduced the references as a means of backing your case. I simply pointed out that the evidence presented was highly selective. We can drop the whole evidence thing if you want, fine.


I was explicit in finding the codification a point of novelty.

It was.

One of the most obviously original things about the US Constitution -- an aspect that Everyman recognized in his/her poll question -- is that it was a whole, written framework of government.

The Constitution sought to create a limited government that had no powers beyond that expressly granted to it by the people in the Constitution itself. This was a rather different approach.
In that it was an attempt to codify a complete culture it was certainly a novelty if you do not count the 17 point japanese constitution of 604 AD. That it was a document that limited the powers of the government is true, but so was the Magna Carta, so was the Bill of rightsof 1688. No novelty there

The American precedent spread quickly to other nations. Belgium, Poland, France, Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile were among the first nations influenced by the US example to adopt a written constitution. Today, the UK is one of a handful of nations with an uncodified body of constitutional law.
No-one is denying that it served as an ineffective model for other constitutions. In how many of the countries listed has the constitution prevented dictatorships arising? One: Belgium and this is a monarchy still.However the debate is about the origin and credit of the concepts enshrined in the constitution, not about the present value of the constitution

One can argue about the relative merits of a codified versus an uncodified constitution, but it is rather silly to deny that the precedent of a written constitution was meaningless. If it has no value, how is it meaningful, and as indicated above, the precedent goes elsewhere (Japan has a claim, but some would give the original written constitution to Hammurabi, not me, but some would)

Are you really going to contend there is no difference between having a fairly clear written constitution and having an uncodified set of laws and traditions? I am going to claim that there is no practical difference, as the constitution can be nothing more than a description of the cultural values to start with.

That the US Constitution was precedent setting in being a single, written government framework does not depend on whether a written consitution is superior to an unwritten one. Repeating it does not make it true.



Actually, have you heard of the Iroquois Confederacy? Not being American: No. So there may have been some elements of another tradition mixed in (If so, they are hard to see). The pont still remains, thaere was nothing original or unique about the constitution. (I see you have decided to cede the point about relatively to me. Thank you)

Regardless, there were lots of European traditions at the time. The Constitution was an agreement as to which particular aspects of these traditions would be followed.

That its aspects could be found in various traditions is different than saying those same aspects would be uniformly followed in the absence of the written document.
No, nothing of the sort. All I am claiming is that there was nothing original in the constitution. That credit for the ideas contained therein should not be given to the founding fathers. Credit for selecting and adopting those ideas does belong with them, but not for creating them.



As you insist on misinterpreting it, let me explain my answers in more detail:

Not all Americans think that the mentioned and other constitutional principles first manifested themselves in the U.S. Constitution. Many -- myself included -- recognize that the Constitution was a codification of ideas of various sources -- most of them English/European (and many of them recognized in the UK Constitution at the time.)
We are in agreement on this.


Explained ad naseum.
Repeated you mean. No explanation has been forthcoming of what difference having the constitution explicitly codified makes.

Much of the US Constitution was already practiced in England or was a straightforward application of Western ideals.

But the Constitution was the first time several ideas were actually put into practice.
Writing it down on a piece of paper is not putting it into practice. I addressed the four points you made, showing that in three cases they were already or had already been practiced, and in the remaining case it was not a point in the constitution at all.

I've listed some of those aspects.

Feel free to show that every aspect of the US Constitution was already in practice elsewhere.
You have acknowledged that the ideas involved derive from elsewhere. That is all that this thread is about. So asking for it to be shown how it is practiced elsewhere is a classic straw man. *torches straw effigy*


No one has questioned this, have they?

Gooooaaal! Only if the referee is blind. I have asked, repeatedly for you to explain these differences. If that is not challenging this, then please explain what would constitute a challenge to your assertion.


Some concepts like equal protection of the law were not clearly recognized in English law in 1789 -- but they weren't recognized in US law then either!

Several of the concepts behind both the UK Constitution and the US Constitution predate either system of government.

If you are going to claim every idea in the US Constitution is old hat, you had best be careful about the dates of when said idea was put in practice elsewhere versus when it was adopted in the US.
This straw man was burnt above.

Clear enough?

Are you done with the sophistry? Should I quote "My Ad hominem attacks". Don't lose the plot now.

We are done with the straw man of implementation. The original question was about the creation of the ideas, and the credit for this.

No it really doesn't...what does patriotism have to do with freedom? The Romans were patriotic but maintained vast hordes of slaves...your point is pointless. ;)


The original question dealt with the supposed belief by Americans in the "originality" of the Consitution. Some folk seemed to want to have other nations' take credit for the concepts (Britain & pre-revolutonary France). I basically responded by saying that the concepts were older than dirt. Some folk apparently disagreed with that idea. My story was meant to convey that the basic premises underlying patriotism was "freedom" and that people have wanted to be free since the dawn of civilization. A person can be "free" in a society that practices slavery (your Roman twist) is irrelevant to the point I was making (and no, I don't want to debate whether a peson who owns a slave is truly free himself.)

My wife has reminded me that respectful discourse is the spoonful of sugar that helps folks swallow otherwise distasteful ideas.



I agree with this guy's wife.

And:

One of the problems in this kind of forum is that some folks want to "win a debate" and aren't too interested in contemplating what the other person has said. It's somewhat like the debate tournaments in high school where the goal was to fire off as much good-sounding stuff as quickly as possible in order to out-point the other person.

If you don't agree with the other person, chew on it a while...roll it around, taste it, compare it to what you're familiar with, compare it to primary sources of some repute...but to just make derisive remarks about folk or to be dismissive about what they say (little snid jabs) actually is a disservice to your own development.

It's now the most famous constitution in the world, that's why. All those stupid amendments about gun ownership etc. etc. That's why it gets so much media coverage - and thus more popularity.

Yeah and "stupid ammendments" of free speech, no establishment clause, and freedom of religion. *rolls eyes.*

*

Before I respond, let me say you have shown me some errors in my thinking on this.

I'll try to point out a few remaining disagreements and where I think there was simply a misunderstanding. I will also try to be clear about where you are right.

Go back and read for yourself. You have a habit of attacking the poster, not the post. I believe that you do not necessarily do this maliciously, but you do do it.

I sometimes do this. One could argue I have a habit of it.

I think it was pretty clear that I did not do that here. To the contrary, I was attacked. Then you jumped on me.

But I recognize my attacks on posts often imply attacks on the poster.


As unique means being one of a kind, I am intrigued how something can be relatively one of a kind. Either it is the only one, and hence unique, or it is not, and hence not unique. Equally original means the first. Now again either it is the first or it is not the first. The only way I can see that anything can be relatively original is if it arose at the same instant of time as another example. Perhaps you are just using the terms in a much looser sense. This would mean that unique stands for uncommon, and original stands for early. Then relatively could apply. But if this is the case, then the argument you made simply acknowledges that there existed precedents for these items in the US constitution, which is what the discussion is abbout, after all.

You are correct. Although you can find those phrases in common usage, they do not make sense per the technical definition of the terms.

"there existed precedents for these items in the US constitution" -- interesting phrasing. We'll come back to that.


The burden of proof falls upon the person who claims something to be the case, at least that is how I understand reasonable debating to work. It avoids the "yes it is" "no it isn't" type argument. You claimed that some articles of the constitution were unique and original (I still withold the relatively until you can explain how it can apply) so it is up to you to show this.

This does not exactly explain why the opening poster that alleged there is nothing original about the Constitution need not prove his/her assertion, but I need to prove the contrary.

I agree if I make an assertion I should be willing to prove it. But your application was a bit lopsided, wasn't it?

It is the point of the thread. How could you not think it would be disputed? :confused:

I thought it was the point of the thread that most of the US Constitution was taken from English and French law.

I did not expect it to be seriously contended that the Constitution did not establish anything that had not been done before.

No it is not a different question. It is the question being discussed here. The origin of the concepts that are simply codified in the US constitution is the subject matter, and the content of the original post.

As I thought I made clear in my every post, I have been referring to when concepts were first put into practice -- not simply when someone first thought of them.

One of my first points was: "There are some significant differences between the concrete codification of an idea in the US Constitution and the general concepts that may be found in European predecessors."

Apparently I took a different take on "manifested."

I've referred to when concepts were practiced in my every post -- including the first one and you've denouced it as the wrong question. But even you at times looked at the question as whether "there existed precedents."

Fine. I answered the wrong question.

No. The writers of the US Constitution did not start tabula rosa. Happy?

Was it Whitehead that said the history of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato?

All political concepts have antecedents. I never meant to state otherwise.


1. This existed in Athens, and is explicit in Plato.
2. Switzerland, ever heard of it. The model of federalism.
3. I have to research this. You may be right here. I do know that the concept exists in Hume, but it is not explicit.
4. Athens again, and this also depends upon your definition of 'independant' which is not a term that applies clearly to SCOTUS . But that is a separate discussion.

1. & 4. Hmm. When did Athens have three seperate branches of goverment with checks and balances and neither legislative nor executive?

Doesn't ring a bell, but could well be true.

Same with Plato. Where is this found? I don't recall it.

2. Good point. More cofederalism than US-style federalism with a strong federal government, but nonetheless you are correct.

The bait and switch game is being played by yourself. The discussion is within the terms laid out in the original post in this thread. This is the originality of the US constitution, the credit for the idea, the claim that these were ideas introduced to the world by the US constitution. Those are the terms of the discussion, like it or not. The espousal of the ideas is the significant point, not the explicit codification in a document.

My bad. I looked at it in terms of when the ideas were put in practice and/or codified.

But you have also shown that many of the ideas were also practiced prior to the Constitution.

Well done.

EDIT: Re separation ofd the church and state. Investigating this, it appears that this does not actually exist in the US constitution. The first ammendment states:

which does not, by any means, separate the church from the state. It simply prevents religious persecution (in theory, not in practice if you look at the current situation). Where is this separation in the US constitution?

Here you are just wrong. I'd rather not get into a side debate about the interpretation of the First Amendment, but the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause are merely two aspects of the separation of church and state.

Thomas Jefferson said so. James Madison said. The US Supreme Court has said so since the question was first raised. In fact, the Court has been unanimous on this point more than once:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947).

Again, I'll start with the recognition that I was largely wrong. You convinced me.

I will give you the break, but not on the terms you want. You introduced the references as a means of backing your case. I simply pointed out that the evidence presented was highly selective. We can drop the whole evidence thing if you want, fine.

Evidence?

I was responding to two posts that tended to imply that I had never heard of the Magna Carta, the French revolution, or any UK or French philosophers ("a fellow named Locke I think").

I tried to demonstrate at least a passing familiarity with at least some relevant thinkers. Nothing more, nothing less.

My response was perhaps ill-conceived, but it wasn't intended "evidence" of anything other than that I was not a drooling moron. I thought being able to at least name the philosophers I did showed that.


In that it was an attempt to codify a complete culture it was certainly a novelty if you do not count the 17 point japanese constitution of 604 AD. That it was a document that limited the powers of the government is true, but so was the Magna Carta, so was the Bill of rightsof 1688. No novelty there

Point taken.

If you want to be technical, the US Constitution taken as whole was "novel," "unique," and "original."

And the ancient Japanese constitution was hardly a framework of government powers and limitations.

Nonetheless, point taken.

No-one is denying that it served as an ineffective model for other constitutions. In how many of the countries listed has the constitution prevented dictatorships arising? One: Belgium and this is a monarchy still.However the debate is about the origin and credit of the concepts enshrined in the constitution, not about the present value of the constitution

Um. The next thing you do is deny that it can be a point of novelty if it is does not have value.

And we disagree about whether codification has value.

But I agree codification is not itself an original idea.

If it has no value, how is it meaningful, and as indicated above, the precedent goes elsewhere (Japan has a claim, but some would give the original written constitution to Hammurabi, not me, but some would)

Good points as to the precedent.

I am going to claim that there is no practical difference, as the constitution can be nothing more than a description of the cultural values to start with.

And I disagree.

And your point is rather limited to the situation where there is a limited set of agreed traditions and laws that are merely codified. Not where a constitution chooses or compromises among diverse or competing traditions.

Nonetheless, I don't feel the need to debate the point further. Your argument has merit.

Repeating it does not make it true.

I concede that codification is not an original idea.

But I did not simply repeat myself in saying: "That the US Constitution was precedent setting in being a single, written government framework does not depend on whether a written consitution is superior to an unwritten one."

Do you contend that something cannot be a point of novelty unless it is also a point of superiority?

Not being American: No. So there may have been some elements of another tradition mixed in (If so, they are hard to see). The pont still remains, thaere was nothing original or unique about the constitution. (I see you have decided to cede the point about relatively to me. Thank you)

I do concede the point about relatively.

The combination of concepts actually implemented in the Constitution was unique.

I concede the concepts did not originate with the Constitution.


No, nothing of the sort. All I am claiming is that there was nothing original in the constitution. That credit for the ideas contained therein should not be given to the founding fathers. Credit for selecting and adopting those ideas does belong with them, but not for creating them.

Which is where I was arguing the wrong point. We agree here.

We are in agreement on this.

Yay!

Repeated you mean. No explanation has been forthcoming of what difference having the constitution explicitly codified makes.

I'm not arguing this further.

Writing it down on a piece of paper is not putting it into practice. I addressed the four points you made, showing that in three cases they were already or had already been practiced, and in the remaining case it was not a point in the constitution at all.

In the case of the US Constitution, it was written down on a piece of paper and then put into practice.

Otherwise, conceded. Except for separation of church and state. (Which I agree was not an original idea -- and has has not been scrupulously practiced.)

You have acknowledged that the ideas involved derive from elsewhere. That is all that this thread is about. So asking for it to be shown how it is practiced elsewhere is a classic straw man. *torches straw effigy*

Again, my bad. I was focused on practice not mere ideas.

Only if the referee is blind. I have asked, repeatedly for you to explain these differences. If that is not challenging this, then please explain what would constitute a challenge to your assertion.

I made a distinction between concrete codification and general ideas floating around.

That is a slightly different point that the difference between a US-style written consitution and a UK-style unwritten constitution.


Should I quote "My Ad hominem attacks". Don't lose the plot now.

Um. Saying someone's argument is sophistry is no more an ad hominem attack than saying it is a strawman or an ad hominem attack.

It is an attack on the character of the argument not on the character or circumstances of the arguer.

We are done with the straw man of implementation. The original question was about the creation of the ideas, and the credit for this.

Finally.

I concede the ideas in the Constitution did not originate with its authors. I never meant to argue otherwise.

@ The Cat Tribe. I am not going to quote all the way through this, in an attempt to keep the post reasonable in length.

First off I would like to offer my respect for your conceding certain points.

Codification of the constitution
I feel that we have to agree to differ on the effect of codification. You believe, for whatever reasons you have, that there is some significant effect in having the constitution explicitly codified. I, on the other hand, for what are basicaly cultural resasons being of British origin, see codification as a detriment, but I also recognise that my negative attitude to it is probably unjustified. Trying as hard as I can to free myself of the prejudice, all I get to is no benefit. This may be a good topic to continue with, as I would like to see why you, and the majority of others think it that it gives some benefit.

Sorry about my bad reaction to being accused of sophistry. I hold sophistry to be a deliberate blurring of the issue, a technique used by the inscrupulous to avoid confronting the argument. As such the ad hominem was in my mind, not your post. My apologies.

The burden of proof on the original poster would be to show that there existed undue claims for the origination of the concepts within the US constitution. Whilst this was not done to a standard that would be acceptable in a court of law, he did justify his claim using hearsay. Sufficient for an internet forum.

I confess that I do tend to hold different posters to different standards. (I also believe that most of us do this). I expect higher standards of evidence from those I regard as more competent, or better informed. That I was demanding an extremely high level from you is both unfair on my part and a compliment to your arguing ability and style.

Precedents, for me may be purely conceptual. I hold that the computer was invented by Pascal for example, and the helicopter and parachute by Leonardo da Vinci. We appear to have a semantic difference. If you hold precedent to have to be practical, then there are aspects of the US constitution that as of yet have not come to pass and as such there is no precedent at all.

But I will concede that as a complete document the US constitution was without precedent.

Athens at the time of the trial of Socrates had the Executive branch in the Autarch, the legislative in the Senate and the judicial in the Public courts. Each was separate and independant of the other two. It is the model that the separation of the powers was based on. There were differences in that the Public courts included the members of the Senate, but these differences are cosmetic. The concept existed. Plato describes the need to seperate the judiciary from the legislature in the Republic. He also clearly requires that the executive (the philosopher king) be independent of the legislature. It is not explicit in the Republic, but it can certainly be read into it.

Now we come on to the point where I concede to you. The separation of the church and state. I am aware that this is currently a controversy in the USA, and I simply do not know enough about it. I bow to your greater experience and knowledge on this. I can accept that the explicit separation of church and state was original and unique to the US constitution. Point taken.

Thank you for the discussion. I would, as I said earlier in this post be interested in discovering what you consider the benefits of a written constitution to be, but this may noit be the time or the place. I may post a thread in a couple of days or so to discuss this.

Well a point of order is the difference between the Athens/Rome Civil system (whereby all things are codified), and the English (who inherited from the Scandenavians and Goths) the Common Law system, which is inherantly "uncodified".

Common Law, itself is "uncodified" principles. Which are expressed through judicial acts (precedent) and legislative acts (laws), the constitution being the initial foundational codification. There should be no contention between the uncodified law, and the codified law... Both work toegether, and it is the purpose of both the courts and legislature to repair controversies in the codified.

The principle of codification, is to set down the basics... Then allow the courts and further codification further enact where necessary. It is all built upon the initial principles, codified and uncodified.

In this, the US Constitution was not that original. It bases its entire legal authority off of the English system of Common Law, codifiying only the base principles. The only "original" codification was its principle of seperating church and state... Something which has existed intermixed, even amongst other Common Law nations. But is a logical extention of "Common Law" principle. So the CODIFICATION is unique... Even though it has existed in principle in the uncodified common law since the first realization of the principle of common law, and freemen.

There is very little actual argument between the parties here, in fact aspects of both are right in this system of common law.

Rome and Athens differed though, they operated under Civil Law. That is, the courts only ruled as the law directed, and the law had to specificaly enumerate all acts for the courts to function (much of the world still operates in this manner, The Commonwealth Nations, and the United States differing on this)...

It's now the most famous constitution in the world, that's why. All those stupid amendments about gun ownership etc. etc. That's why it gets so much media coverage - and thus more popularity.
Almost all constitutions around the world are based on it. Those of Democratic nations that is.
This, of course excludes Britain but includes France which didn't have a constitution until the American revolution encouraged them to oust their own monarchy.

Well I'm sure the Magna Carta came before the American Constitution, as did the French idea of 'liberte'. Perhaps you should address your chronological misconceptions.
No he doesn't. There was no french idea of 'liberte'. I think you are confusing the brits with the french.

The Magna Carta wasn't actually that important. It gave a few rights to nobles. Why is it such a big deal? We don't even have nobles nowadays.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
The reason it was so important to Americans as well as Brits is that it was an important first step. Without it, there may very well not have been an American revolution.

No he doesn't. There was no french idea of 'liberte'. I think you are confusing the brits with the french.
Er, no. French Revolution ring any bells? Liberty was central to revolutionary demands (until the Jacobins got a wee bit overenthusiastic about maintaining control).

Yes, it is. Of course, it's very evident that you have not earned these degrees yourself. If you have, your chronology is still muddled. Why did you floor the idea that these principles were developed afted the United States Constitution was drafted? The Magna Carta is ancient, and the British philosophers you mentioned along with Smith were the major source of American constitutional principle (their ideas came along BEFOREHAND). Just because the French revolution precipitated after the American Constitution was drafted does not discount the possibility that those ideas were gestating long beforehand, which they were.
That is not what he was saying.

And if you want to get down to it, Smith and all them, though they inspired the founders, were very general in expressing these concepts.
The founders took them and made them into specific statements of rights and liberties.

I personally believe that an uncodified consitution is superior. Flexible, organic, and usually convention is a far greater check. As Alien suggested, the cultural impetus to abide by the rules is usually far greater than any formally codified.
except that culture can go against human rights and liberty.

Er, no. French Revolution ring any bells? Liberty was central to revolutionary demands (until the Jacobins got a wee bit overenthusiastic about maintaining control).
No. No. No. The French Revolution came after the American Revolution. Not before it.

75% of Americans claim to be irish
I'm Irish.

75% of Americans claim to be irish
What I'd like to know is: How many Irishmen claim to be Irish?
*ponders*

75% of Americans claim to be irish
the other 25% of us claim to be cherokee (even the chinese-americans! no, really!)

No. No. No. The French Revolution came after the American Revolution. Not before it.
Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that the French idea of liberty didn't exist at all. My mistake.

Locke, Smith, Englightenment are taught in school, just no one pays attention.