NationStates Jolt Archive

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WTF, a more perfect union. You can't be more perfect, you either are, or you're not. Opinions.

As opposed to that set up under the Articles of Confederation. Learn some history. Then come back and try again.

What, they couldn't find a better way to say it. A more perfect union makes no sense, maybe, a better union. A nicer union, but more perfect sounds retarded.

As opposed to that set up under the Articles of Confederation. Learn some history. Then come back and try again.

more perfect sounds retarded.

we are still talking about the US no?

*runs*

we are still talking about the US no?

*runs*

Yep. *chases call to power and drags him back to the states*

[I] Opinions.

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/taz.gif

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WTF, a more perfect union. You can't be more perfect, you either are, or you're not. Opinions.

My opinion is that considering how well the constitution has stood up over time and adapted over the years your criticism is obnoxiously pedantic.

18th century linguistics. Don't bother with it, it's how they wrote back then, very ornamental compared to the spartan, utilitarian styles of today.

My opinion is that considering how well the constitution has stood up over time and adapted over the years your criticism is obnoxiously pedantic.

I know; it was good for its time, but today I think it will have a hard time adapting to modern problems. I think a new constitution should be drafted, one that still holds true to the ideals set by the founding fathers, but is better suited for modern problems.

What, they couldn't find a better way to say it. A more perfect union makes no sense, maybe, a better union. A nicer union, but more perfect sounds retarded.

My opinion is that considering how well the constitution has stood up over time and adapted over the years your criticism is obnoxiously pedantic.

DCD just bitchslapped you. Run along, kid.

DCD just bitchslapped you. Run along, kid.

Ahhhh *rubs side of face,* I'm not done yet.

I know; it was good for its time, but today I think it will have a hard time adapting to modern problems. I think a new constitution should be drafted, one that still holds true to the ideals set by the founding fathers, but is better suited for modern problems.
Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

It probably won't happen but whatever.

Ahhhh *rubs side of face,* I'm not done yet.

Yes, you are.

Yes, you are.

Are you standing somewhere around where I am waiting to pull the plug out of my computer or something?

I know; it was good for its time, but today I think it will have a hard time adapting to modern problems. I think a new constitution should be drafted, one that still holds true to the ideals set by the founding fathers, but is better suited for modern problems.
It could do with being amended in places, but replacing it would be way too far.

It could do with being amended in places, but replacing it would be way too far.

Maybe. Why can't America be like the British, and get over its self. Britain doesn't arrogantly waltz around boasting that it is a world power. They are at least a little humble, and accept the fact that they are not invinsible.

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WTF, a more perfect union. You can't be more perfect, you either are, or you're not. Opinions.

i hardly think that has any real bearing on the vlidity of the subsequent articles. it's just a figure of speech.

Maybe. Why can't America be like the British, and get over its self. Britain doesn't arrogantly waltz around boasting that it is a world power. They are at least a little humble, and accept the fact that they are not invinsible.

Maybe because the UK's not a world power anymore? It's certainly not on the level of the US.

Maybe because the UK's not a world power anymore? It's certainly not on the level of the US.

I know, and pretty soon we will be right on Britain level, Iraq has shown that our ability to wage an effective war and occupy an area has greatly diminished. America is a dimming light in the world.

Maybe. Why can't America be like the British, and get over its self. Britain doesn't arrogantly waltz around boasting that it is a world power. They are at least a little humble, and accept the fact that they are not invinsible.
1. We do arrogantly waltz around boasting that we are a world power, although we aren't.
2. What does that have to do with the US constitution?

1. We do arrogantly waltz around boasting that we are a world power, although we aren't.
2. What does that have to do with the US constitution?

Nothing, just a mild out-burst.

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WTF, a more perfect union. You can't be more perfect, you either are, or you're not. Opinions.
Dude, it was ruined even earlier than you seem to think.

"We the people"? No, we the land-owning white males. The overwhelming majority of the actual people didn't ordain or establish the Constitution. Most of them couldn't even read it. The majority of the human beings living in what was about to become the United States of America would not even be recognized as holding all the rights laid out in that document. "The people" didn't include non-whites or women, even though those demographics actually comprised the majority of the people.

My point in bringing up the United Kingdom was this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Flexibility

we should model ourselves after the British, they have a lot more flexibility in their government, then we do, thus they are able to adapt more readily to problems Britain may face.

Dude, it was ruined even earlier than you seem to think.

"We the people"? No, we the land-owning white males. The overwhelming majority of the actual people didn't ordain or establish the Constitution. Most of them couldn't even read it.

Great point.

The only reason we even exsist is because some white men went around bitching because they had to pay taxes when they sent stuff over seas. they couldn't smuggle, so they just started a revolution. Cry Babies. The taxes in the American Colonies were substantially lower then the taxes people faced on the actual british iles. We just felt like being little ungrateful bastards.

I suppose the Magna Carta was oh-so-different in that regard?

Actually it was.

Dude, it was ruined even earlier than you seem to think.

"We the people"? No, we the land-owning white males. The overwhelming majority of the actual people didn't ordain or establish the Constitution. Most of them couldn't even read it. The majority of the human beings living in what was about to become the United States of America would not even be recognized as holding all the rights laid out in that document. "The people" didn't include non-whites or women, even though those demographics actually comprised the majority of the people.

I suppose, say, the Magna Carta was oh-so-different in that regard?

My point in bringing up the United Kingdom was this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Flexibility

we should model ourselves after the British, they have a lot more flexibility in their government, then we do, thus they are able to adapt more readily to problems Britain may face.
We need a written constitution, pronto. It is far too open to government abuse, and a far too powerful executive.

I know, and pretty soon we will be right on Britain level, Iraq has shown that our ability to wage an effective war and occupy an area has greatly diminished. America is a dimming light in the world.

Actually we're great at waging an effective war. Iraq's military was gone in days. As for being able to occupy a region, you either need the support of the citizens there or you need to brutalize them into submission. We've gotten too soft to maintain the order necessary to win their hearts and minds or to burn their damn huts down.

Great point.

The only reason we even exsist is because some white men went around bitching because they had to pay taxes when they sent stuff over seas. they couldn't smuggle, so they just started a revolution. Cry Babies. The taxes in the American Colonies were substantially lower then the taxes people faced on the actual british iles. We just felt like being little ungrateful bastards.

That whole stamp tax thing, being forced to house Prussian mercenaries, and not having representation in Parliament had a little bit to do w/ it as well.

Er... I really hate the people in power right now and the things their doing with our country, but I love this country and think the preamble is one of the greatest things ever written. To attempt to alter it would be horrible. *runs back to his regular forum*

We need a written constitution, pronto. It is far too open to government abuse, and a far too powerful executive.

But you guys at least avoid going into pointless wars. I think your representive in the U.N. along with germany were opposed to the American invasion of Iraq, weren't they.

Truth be told, the American Congress keeps the government from doing anything usefull, the British look at the problem from all angles,and decide how to handle, if america gets a big problem thrown at it, we wet our pants and run for the hills.

No we shouldn't model outselves after Britian. We are our own country and should evolve as such. Saying "'X' worked in this country, so we should adopt that over here." is moot. Compairing two countries and demanding the other be like it is equal to trying to recreate a psychological case study. The conditions are never exactly the same, therefore, you will never get the same answer. Hence why Britian, and the rest of Europe, are more Socialist than America.

I suppose, say, the Magna Carta was oh-so-different in that regard?
Hell no. If anything, the Magna Carta was worse in that regard.

Please understand, I really like the Constitution. I think it's a damn cool piece of work. I think that the fundamental design of the American government is totally sweet.

It's just that I also think the Founders were land-owning white males who not only over-looked non-land-owning non-white non-male people, but they even did so over the express protests of their own loved ones. Abigail Adams begged her husband to knock off the institutionalized sexism for pity's sake, but we still had to wait a century and a half before women won the vote. The Founders wrote themselves one hell of a document, but it had some goddam gigantic holes in it, too.

Actually it was.

Are you fucking high?

Are you fucking high?

No. I like it because it put more power in the hands of the people and the nobles instead of being forced into oppression by an absolute ruler. It is one of the high points in British history.

WTF, a more perfect union. You can't be more perfect, you either are, or you're not. Opinions.
Perhaps they were anticipating gay marriage, or Valentine's Day, or both.

Perhaps they were anticipating gay marriage, or Valentine's Day, or both.

Maybe, gay marriage is something else that is pointless and is bogging down congress, our government focuses on stupid things to avoid real problems. I don't give a fuck about gay people getting married, if they love each other who cares. I just don't want to see it.

I think the U.S constitution needs to be way more flexible, like Switzerland's. It's too outdated and riddled with inconsistencies, which is constantly having to be interpreted this way and that way.

It was a product of the times. Sure, those times sucked for certain groups, but given the socio-political climate of the time, the Constitution rocks. And since it can be amended, well, even more so.

It can be amended, but it takes so fucking long.

Hell no. If anything, the Magna Carta was worse in that regard.

Please understand, I really like the Constitution. I think it's a damn cool piece of work. I think that the fundamental design of the American government is totally sweet.

It's just that I also think the Founders were land-owning white males who not only over-looked non-land-owning non-white non-male people, but they even did so over the express protests of their own loved ones. Abigail Adams begged her husband to knock off the institutionalized sexism for pity's sake, but we still had to wait a century and a half before women won the vote. The Founders wrote themselves one hell of a document, but it had some goddam gigantic holes in it, too.


It was a product of the times. Sure, those times sucked for certain groups, but given the socio-political climate of the time, the Constitution rocks. And since it can be amended, well, even more so.

No. I like it because it put more power in the hands of the people and the nobles instead of being forced into oppression by an absolute ruler. It is one of the high points in British history.

It put power in the hands of nobles, not the people in general. It's a high point, sure. I'll give you that. But it did nothing more than diminish the monarchy at the expense of entitled land-owners. Care to try again?

Maybe, gay marriage is something else that is pointless and is bogging down congress, our government focuses on stupid things to avoid real problems. I don't give a fuck about gay people getting married, if they love each other who cares. I just don't want to see it.

Twere a mere jape. I felt like stirring the pot a smidge when i posted that.
That, and apparently there's a temporal inconsistency on Jolt again.

I know; it was good for its time, but today I think it will have a hard time adapting to modern problems. I think a new constitution should be drafted, one that still holds true to the ideals set by the founding fathers, but is better suited for modern problems.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6696/stewiequ8.png

No. I like it because it put more power in the hands of the autocratic nobles.

Fixed.

It can be amended, but it takes so fucking long.

For good reason. We shouldn't be amending the foundation of our government willy-nilly, based on popular opinion at any given moment.

I'll tell you what ruined the constitution: Necessary and proper clause. 'Nuff said.

It put power in the hands of nobles, not the people in general. It's a high point, sure. I'll give you that. But it did nothing more than diminish the monarchy at the expense of entitled land-owners. Care to try again?

I never said it did better than the constitution, I agree that the constitution is one of the greatest documents ever, but has room to change. The Magna-Carta was a strong step towards putting power in the hands of the people. Absolutionism should not be allowed to exsist, and the Magna-Carta reduced the power of the monarchy, thus reduced absolutionism in Britain, that is why I like that particular document.

It can be amended, but it takes so fucking long.


Which is exaclty the point. It makes it more difficult for "popular at the moment" activists to try and push through a personal agenda. Not that it hasn't happened , but it makes it much more difficult.

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WTF, a more perfect union. You can't be more perfect, you either are, or you're not. Opinions.

Yes, you can be more perfect. more perfect means closer to perfection than you had been previously. in fact, this line could be interpreted that the purpose of the constitution is to keep America building towards perfection, so that it can always be more perfect than it had been previously.


It's just that I also think the Founders were land-owning white males who not only over-looked non-land-owning non-white non-male people, but they even did so over the express protests of their own loved ones. Abigail Adams begged her husband to knock off the institutionalized sexism for pity's sake, but we still had to wait a century and a half before women won the vote. The Founders wrote themselves one hell of a document, but it had some goddam gigantic holes in it, too.

If they had given black men, women, and poor people rights in the constitution, most of the states would not have signed it. The founding fathers had to walk a bit of a line with their constitution, and luckily were able to sneak in little bits that would later be the justification for reform.

I think the U.S constitution needs to be way more flexible, like Switzerland's. It's too outdated and riddled with inconsistencies, which is constantly having to be interpreted this way and that way.

That's why it established the judiciary and the Supreme Court, to do just that. It's an incredibly flexible document.

Which is exaclty the point. It makes it more difficult for "popular at the moment" activists to try and push through a personal agenda. Not that it hasn't happened , but it makes it much more difficult.

But, sometimes the popular at the moment activists have it right, and most of the time we waste years trying to amend the constitution to make pointless things legal or illegal, take gay marriage for example.

My point in bringing up the United Kingdom was this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Flexibility

we should model ourselves after the British, they have a lot more flexibility in their government, then we do, thus they are able to adapt more readily to problems Britain may face.

Oh no you don't.

The only reason the Westminster worked was due to the unique aristocratic neuroses of the politicians who ran it. There is no governing force behind the British constitution other than the hope that current and future governments will comply with tradition. However, we are now seeing the rise in the New Labour movement of what appears to simply be anti-traditionalism for anti-traditionalism's sake. Traditions, good and bad, are tossed aside by the constant urge to be 'modern'. And these traditions of good governance are the only things that separate us from the hundreds of failed Westminster systems (Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Burma, Jordan, etc.).

We'll soon regret our lack of codified constitutional law when some future prime minister decides that what constitutes 'modernity' this year is compulsary biochips, 24-hour survaillance and secret policemen in every block of flats.

Oh no you don't.

The only reason the Westminster worked was due to the unique aristocratic neuroses of the politicians who ran it. There is no governing force behind the British constitution other than the hope that current and future governments will comply with tradition. However, we are now seeing the rise in the New Labour movement of what appears to simply be anti-traditionalism for anti-traditionalism's sake. Traditions, good and bad, are tossed aside by the constant urge to be 'modern'. And these traditions of good governance are the only things that separate us from the hundreds of failed Westminster systems (Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Burma, Jordan, etc.).

We'll soon regret our lack of codified constitutional law when some future prime minister decides that what constitutes 'modernity' this year is compulsary biochips, 24-hour survaillance and secret policemen in every block of flats.

What I meant was that the British Government has a greater ability to adapt. They are not glued to an outdated document written in the 1700's that keeps them from doing anything usefull.

No. I like it because it put more power in the hands of the people and the nobles instead of being forced into oppression by an absolute ruler. It is one of the high points in British history.

The number of people the Magna Carta empowered could be counted on one set of hands.

</justified hyperbole>

If they had given black men, women, and poor people rights in the constitution, most of the states would not have signed it. The founding fathers had to walk a bit of a line with their constitution, and luckily were able to sneak in little bits that would later be the justification for reform.
Dude, if black men, women, and poor people WERE CONSIDERED PART OF THE STATES IN THE FIRST PLACE, then yes, they would have signed it.

The entire problem was that women, blacks, poor people, immigrants, Native Americans, and pretty much the majority of the human population were not allowed to participate in this process from the get-go. If you add up all those populations, though, they would be way more than enough to over-rule the land-owning white male minority.

But, sometimes the popular at the moment activists have it right, and most of the time we waste years trying to amend the constitution to make pointless things legal or illegal, take gay marriage for example.

As an example of something that shouldn't be a federal issue? Sure. Well played. :rolleyes:

What I meant was that the British Government has a greater ability to adapt. They are not glued to an outdated document written in the 1700's that keeps them from doing anything usefull.

if you think that the constitution of the united states is an outdated document that prevents us from doing anything useful I suggest you try life in some other places without such unusefull documents.

I agree with cluitch on page one.

Whether you keep talking or not, you really are done here.

if you think that the constitution of the united states is an outdated document that prevents us from doing anything useful I suggest you try life in some other places without such unusefull documents.

I agree with cluitch on page one.

Whether you keep talking or not, you really are done here.

As I said earlier, Britain doesn't have some outdated unuseful document, in fact they don't have one at all, and they are doing just fine.

I'll tell you what ruined the constitution: Necessary and proper clause. 'Nuff said.

the necessary and proper clause doesn't actually DO anything. It's self evident, not empowerment in the slightest.

A lot of people, including myself, believe you could take the clause out entirely and it wouldn't change a thing. All the necessary and proper clause says is that congress may take steps necessary to actualize the power already granted to them earlier.

It's a great big duh.

What I meant was that the British Government has a greater ability to adapt. They are not glued to an outdated document written in the 1700's that keeps them from doing anything usefull.

Yes it does. But more times than not, adaption is a bad thing.

A good indicator as to how well a constitution works is to see how long it would take for an individual or group to impose dictatorial rule. In Britain, it could be done overnight, the government could propose 'A Bill to Abolish Democracy', have it rubberstamped by a whipped parliament and have it signed into law by a powerless monarch.

In America it would take decades, the tyrants would have to wait for the Supreme Court to empty itself up, and fill it with their people (which would take years and would require the Congress to be filled by a majority of totally loyal representitives for every one of those years). Its practically impossible. Whereas in Britain our liberties are completely in the hands of 600ish people.

As I said earlier, Britain doesn't have some outdated unuseful document, in fact they don't have one at all, and they are doing just fine.

"Unuseful"? What the fuck is that?

As I said earlier, Britain doesn't have some outdated unuseful document, in fact they don't have one at all, and they are doing just fine.

"Unuseful"? What the fuck is that?

"Unuseful"? What the fuck is that?


Umm oposite of Usefull? Un-usefull!

the necessary and proper clause doesn't actually DO anything. It's self evident, not empowerment in the slightest.

A lot of people, including myself, believe you could take the clause out entirely and it wouldn't change a thing. All the necessary and proper clause says is that congress may take steps necessary to actualize the power already granted to them earlier.

It's a great big duh.

It's also extremely vaguely worded, allowing the government to do all sorts of unconstitutional things, with the "necessary and proper" clause as justification.

Umm oposite of Usefull? Un-usefull!

Ew.

It's also extremely vaguely worded, allowing the government to do all sorts of unconstitutional things, with the "necessary and proper" clause as justification.


Goes back to my comment about flexibility. How is it unconstitutional if it's not flat-out prohibited? You fail at reading comprehension.

It's also extremely vaguely worded, allowing the government to do all sorts of unconstitutional things, with the "necessary and proper" clause as justification.

ehh, it may be used as a justification, but not as an allowance. It only allows them to do what is necessary to execute the powers given in the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WTF, a more perfect union. You can't be more perfect, you either are, or you're not. Opinions.


"More perfect" = "closer to perfection", "more nearly perfected".

As I said earlier, Britain doesn't have some outdated unuseful document, in fact they don't have one at all, and they are doing just fine.

"Just fine"? You've just in the past few years managed to eliminate every check and balance on the Parliament altogether by emasculating the House of Lords. You now have an elected dictator with no limits on what he can do save what his own party won't allow. Which seems to be frack-all.