NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

Because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and outlines the very freedoms which make this country worth living in.

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

Diligent indoctrination that pervadingly saturates their entire social fabric.

Maybe because it's the last piece of idealism that remains in American politics today.

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

Would you really want people today to tinker with freedom of religion or speech?

For God's sake, these people voted for Bush and had him reelected, even after it was clear how terrible he was as a leader. The thought of our current electorate doing anything to the one protection we have against dictatorship is terrifying to me.

Because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and outlines the very freedoms which make this country worth living in.

Diligent indoctrination that pervadingly saturates their entire social fabric.

I doff my hat to either serendipity or good timing on someone's part. Well played indeed.

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

because it's the supreme law of the country?

Ah, yes, revering the constitution is the bad thing to do nowadays. Forgot.

Because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and outlines the very freedoms which make this country worth living in.
nah, the US government is always looking for ways to go around it's so called bill of rights.

I doff my hat to either serendipity or good timing on someone's part. Well played indeed.

Je fais de mon mieux, mon vieux.

Because it beats the hell out of anything the fuckheads that run our country these days would implement. It also happens to create a stable state which (when it is not abused, as the Bush admin has done) protects critical rights, sustains a moderate, healthy Federalist government, and leaves enough room for adaptation as the times allow.

And the model beats the hell out of the populist parliamentary system which creates more accountability for MPs to parties, than to their constituents.

There really is no logical reason to care about the legal opinions of a bunch of rich old white guys in the late 18th century. Not only was the constitution written in pre-industrial times, but many of the provisions(the electoral college, the two houses, equal representation for each state in the Senate, etc.) were the result of compromises between the power interests of different states. Does it really make sense that a voter in Wyoming should have more say over who the president is than a voter in California? Does it make sense that the 515,004 citizens of Wyoming should get the exact same power in the Senate as the 36,457,549 citizens of California?

Does it make sense that the 515,004 citizens of Wyoming should get the exact same power in the Senate as the 36,457,549 citizens of California?

You do realize, I hope, that this is what the House of Representatives is for...

nah, the US government is always looking for ways to go around it's so called bill of rights.

Particularily this one. Thankfully we have it so they have something they have to go around to take your freedoms.

Because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and outlines the very freedoms which make this country worth living in.
That's why I used the term "moral justification" rather than "legal justification".

What confuses me is that many Americans say that there should be no welfare system simply because their constitution doesn't provide for one.
This necessitates ignoring the fact that we now live in very different times to those times. It ignores that the interests of the people now is more important than the ideology of the elite men of 230+ years ago. It ignores political philosophy since then. Essentially the strictness of your adherence to this document condemns you to be stuck in the past, ideologically.

Basically, your constitution does not articulate eternal truths (in the manner of a holy book) but many Americans treat it as such.

Wow, a bunch of Anti-Americans. What did we do wrong? We srew up in one war and everyone hates us? We help the Europeans on so many other things, and we even stood out of their way during the 1800's and yet they hate us. We rever our Constitution because it is the model for the first modern democratic nation ever created. It is the law. And also, we have amendments to change it. It has lasted hundreds of years. We have modified it so there are no more slaves and corrected many other injustices. That is why it is great, because people CAN change it.

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

Because they were not interested in dictating the every detail, but setting general guidelines for the nation to proceed. It's been changed around in parts, yet the government still works despite the worst President each party can bring to the office. It's the rulebook we play by. Simple.

There really is no logical reason to care about the legal opinions of a bunch of rich old white guys in the late 18th century. Not only was the constitution written in pre-industrial times, but many of the provisions(the electoral college, the two houses, equal representation for each state in the Senate, etc.) were the result of compromises between the power interests of different states. Does it really make sense that a voter in Wyoming should have more say over who the president is than a voter in California? Does it make sense that the 515,004 citizens of Wyoming should get the exact same power in the Senate as the 36,457,549 citizens of California?

Well, how about doing with the current forms of governments in Europe as well? After all, all of those governments were created by a bunch of rich old white guys before the 18th century.

The reason that the house of representatives has more power than the senate, is that originally the senators were appointed by the governors, and the representatives have always been elected by the people.

And as for the electoral college, without it, all it would take is for a candidate to take New England, California and Florida, and the rest of the country does not count.

Of course, since most white created government systems seem to be at some type of fault, then maybe we can go toward anarchy, and then he who owns the guns makes the rules.

Vic

Wow, a bunch of Anti-Americans. What did we do wrong? We srew up in one war and everyone hates us? We help the Europeans on so many other things, and we even stood out of their way during the 1800's and yet they hate us.
Europeans hate you? How, by being your best allies?

Europeans hate you? How, by being your best allies?

Excuse me, shouldn't say all. What I should have said is they *seem* to have a lot of bad will towards us lately.

There really is no logical reason to care about the legal opinions of a bunch of rich old white guys in the late 18th century. Not only was the constitution written in pre-industrial times, but many of the provisions(the electoral college, the two houses, equal representation for each state in the Senate, etc.) were the result of compromises between the power interests of different states. Does it really make sense that a voter in Wyoming should have more say over who the president is than a voter in California? Does it make sense that the 515,004 citizens of Wyoming should get the exact same power in the Senate as the 36,457,549 citizens of California?
Have you ever read the US constitution, or even seen whats in it? Separation of Church and state, freedom of speech, civil liberties and human rights etc. etc.

Unless you are a Christian or hard core conservative, why would you oppose any of those? I think your anti-American views are carrying over to something you know NOTHING about.

That's why I used the term "moral justification" rather than "legal justification".

What confuses me is that many Americans say that there should be no welfare system simply because their constitution doesn't provide for one.
This necessitates ignoring the fact that we now live in very different times to those times. It ignores that the interests of the people now is more important than the ideology of the elite men of 230+ years ago. It ignores political philosophy since then. Essentially the strictness of your adherence to this document condemns you to be stuck in the past, ideologically.

Basically, your constitution does not articulate eternal truths (in the manner of a holy book) but many Americans treat it as such.

And yet we have welfare.

Just because some right-wing hick says "it's not i the Constitution" doesn't mean that he's right. The rights guarenteed are interpreted by the Judiciary, not Rush Limbaugh.

Well, how about doing with the current forms of governments in Europe as well? After all, all of those governments were created by a bunch of rich old white guys before the 18th century.

The reason that the house of representatives has more power than the senate, is that originally the senators were appointed by the governors, and the representatives have always been elected by the people.

And as for the electoral college, without it, all it would take is for a candidate to take New England, California and Florida, and the rest of the country does not count.

Of course, since most white created government systems seem to be at some type of fault, then maybe we can go toward anarchy, and then he who owns the guns makes the rules.

Vic
The Senate jas more power than the House.

Excuse me, shouldn't say all. What I should have said is they *seem* to have a lot of bad will towards us lately.

Lately? Haha, how naïve...

The Senate jas more power than the House.

Which is where Equality above all comes in. Something leftists such as Global likes :)

Lately? Haha, how naïve...

But, why?

Excuse me, shouldn't say all. What I should have said is they *seem* to have a lot of bad will towards us lately.
Maybe we were sick of

hearing that we were terrorist sympathisers for not wanting an ineffective war in Iraq (history has proven us right already)
hearing that were weak, appeasing, etc for above
being bullied into accepting rendition flights through our land
being forced to pay for a war we didn't want (all in taxes, some in blood)
terrorist attacks brought about by that war (London, Madrid)
George Bush's proudly-worn ignorance of everything outside America


you get the idea

Which is where Equality above all comes in. Something leftists such as Global likes :)
Are you saying letting the majority speak is bad? Letting the American people elect officials to oppose the white house is a good thing.

Are you saying letting the majority speak is bad? Letting the American people elect officials to oppose the white house is a good thing.

No, No. I agree with you.

Maybe we were sick of

hearing that we were terrorist sympathisers for not wanting an ineffective war in Iraq (history has proven us right already)
hearing that were weak, appeasing, etc for above
being bullied into accepting rendition flights through our land
being forced to pay for a war we didn't want (all in taxes, some in blood)
terrorist attacks brought about by that war (London, Madrid)
George Bush's proudly-worn ignorance of everything outside America


you get the idea

So, you hate us, all of America, over ONE President, after ALL we did for you? Do you just hate the prez or America. I can understand the Prez, but why America?

Which is where Equality above all comes in. Something leftists such as Global likes :)
I prefer the phrase "über alles" to be honest.








j/k ;)

The reason that we use our constitution (that was made by a bunch of old guys) is because without it the government would have complete reign over what was right and wrong. This would be total chaos as even a slight majority of either the right or the left gives them the power to do almost anything. The constitution is in place to prevent things like that. Also, a lot of the ideas from the constitution are and will continue to be useful, consider the right of free speech etc... Also, I would just like to point out that just because the American government thinks it, the American citizens think it too. We had midterm elections a while back, and for any of you people out there who heard, the government swung the liberals back into power (and they do want welfare). Not only that but the President's approval rating isn't exactly in perfect condition. So please, stop making biased remarks on the American government (which is made up of around 1000 top-officials) and consider what the AMERICAN PEOPLE think about the constitution. And as far as I'm concerned it's working out just fine, seeing as America is one of the world's leading superpowers.

So, you hate us, all of America, over ONE President, after ALL we did for you? Do you just hate the prez or America. I can understand the Prez, but why America?
Not at all. Hating an entire country and people is for idiots. In fact hatred in general doesn't really indicate intelligence. I am just explaining the general lack of goodwill towards your country. "Hatred" is far too strong a word for it.

And please stop talking about "all you did for us". 1945 is three generations back at this stage.

So, you hate us, all of America, over ONE President, after ALL we did for you? Do you just hate the prez or America. I can understand the Prez, but why America?
Don't go into "after all we did for you" its a weak and stupid point to argue.

Most people hate our president, but we elected him two times (well...once), so it is fair to carry over hate to the majority of America who elected him the second time around.

But, why?

I suggest you find a non-USA history book and read the parts on US foreign policy over the last 50 years.

You know what, even after the adoration of the constitution, I don't get?

The worshipping of the "founding fathers".

Almost everything comes down to "and I think it is what the founding fathers would have wanted", or "and I think the founding fathers would agree".

Seriously? How are the views of a group of rich men in the late 18thC relevant to the happenings of the everyday man in the early 21stC?

Not at all. Hating an entire country and people is for idiots. In fact hatred in general doesn't really indicate intelligence. I am just explaining the general lack of goodwill towards your country. "Hatred" is far too strong a word for it.

And please stop talking about "all you did for us". 1945 is three generations back at this stage.

So? We should just forget History. That's great. Say that was three generations ago to the veterans, and the graves in Normandy. If we had sat back, Europe may have been occupied. I still respect the French for assisting us in the Revolution...

I suggest you find a non-USA history book and read the parts on US foreign policy over the last 50 years.

I can find that out from you, thank you very much. I know how you view that. You seem to forget the S.U. and their Policy, however.

Sadly, most Americans today do not know the Constitution from a piece of toilet paper, and don't care about how badly it gets raped unless Bush is the one doing the raping (wee bit hypocritical there).

Regardless, for those of us who DO appreciate the Constitution, it's important because it was designed to prevent the arbitrary and unlimited exercise of power by the Federal government while still being strong enough to keep things running smoothly between the states. It struck a near-perfect balance of individual rights, state autonomy, and Federal authority, and also between large states and small states. It served us pretty well for a good 200 years.

I feel like pointing out that the Constitution does not prohibit a welfare state; it only prohibits a FEDERAL welfare state. The individual states can be as socialist as they like.

Unfortunately, the 16th and 17th Amendments basically annihilated states' rights, and the Federal government has become increasingly corrupt and totalitarian ever since then. New Hampshire and Texas are damn near ready to declare independence from us.

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

No matter how much time passes, cars still don't fly- yet.

In other words, America hasn't changed enough to alter the constitution majorly.

You know what, even after the adoration of the constitution, I don't get?

The worshipping of the "founding fathers".

Almost everything comes down to "and I think it is what the founding fathers would have wanted", or "and I think the founding fathers would agree".

Seriously? How are the views of a group of rich men in the late 18thC relevant to the happenings of the everyday man in the early 21stC?
Do you know what they believed? I am interested in knowing if your an Ann Coulter clone, or just someone who does not know whats in the constitution.

You may be surprised to know that whats in the constitution is still relavent to this day, and is the correct way to work. The Constitution calls for freedom of speech,separation of church and state, civil liberties, and human rights. Not following these laws because they are old is just stupid, because they still work.

Do you know what they believed? I am interested in knowing if your an Ann Coulter clone, or just someone who does not know whats in the constitution.

You may be surprised to know that whats in the constitution is still relavent to this day, and is the correct way to work. The Constitution calls for freedom of speech,separation of church and state, civil liberties, and human rights. Not following these laws because they are old is just stupid, because they are still work.

I agree.

You seem to forget the S.U. and their Policy, however.

You seem to think it somehow excuses and effaces yours. It does not.

What confuses me is that many Americans say that there should be no welfare system simply because their constitution doesn't provide for one.

It doesnt?

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...

You seem to think it somehow excuses and effaces yours. It does not.

Did I say that? Well let's look at it. Korea? Seems fair to me? Vietnam? Questionable. Desert Storm? U.N. said go-ahead. Is there anything you disagree with. I would like to see your view, if you would also see mine.

So? We should just forget History. That's great.
That's what you're advocating with your "Europeans have no reason not to love us" position.

Say that was three generations ago to the veterans
You really are the weakest debator ever. You're using this emotive shit. It was three generations ago; that's a fact. And my grandfather fought in the British Army.

I can find that out from you, thank you very much. I know how you view that. You seem to forget the S.U. and their Policy, however.
We didn't like the Soviets either. Didn't think of that, did you?

No matter how much time passes, cars still don't fly- yet.

In other words, America hasn't changed enough to alter the constitution majorly.
America has changed hugely. Your constitution was written before the Industrial age; now you;re in the post-industrial age.

And they didn't have cars of any kind in 1776.

You know what, even after the adoration of the constitution, I don't get?

The worshipping of the "founding fathers".

Almost everything comes down to "and I think it is what the founding fathers would have wanted", or "and I think the founding fathers would agree".

Seriously? How are the views of a group of rich men in the late 18thC relevant to the happenings of the everyday man in the early 21stC?

Because those founders set up the law. And the law is still in place. Therefore since they wrote the laws, we havet two choices. Either ensure our activities conform to the standard we believe they would have accepted in the framework of those laws, or change them.

It's not reverence, it's not worship. It's law. The constitution isn't just words, it's not just sentiment. It is LAW. And when you deal with the LAW you must consider the intent of those who WROTE the law. Their viewpoint is valid because they drafted the law that is still in place.

Did I say that? Well let's look at it. Korea? Seems fair to me? Vietnam? Questionable. Desert Storm? U.N. said go-ahead. Is there anything you disagree with. I would like to see your view, if you would also see mine.
You've already proven yourself to be a walking stereotype; I'm sure I could articulate your opinions for you.

Do you know what they believed? I am interested in knowing if your an Ann Coulter clone, or just someone who does not know whats in the constitution.

That'll be neither.

You may be surprised to know that whats in the constitution is still relavent to this day, and is the correct way to work. The Constitution calls for freedom of speech,separation of church and state, civil liberties, and human rights. Not following these laws because they are old is just stupid, because they still work.

Great.

Don't worry, I know your constitution very well. I've read it many times, and I respect the sentiments pronounced in your Bill of Rights, even if I'm not particularly fond of your system of government.

However, the Constitution wasn't anything to do with my post. Perhaps you would like to read it again.

America has changed hugely. Your constitution was written before the Industrial age; now you;re in the post-industrial age.

And yet people then, just as now, had a press. And had religion. And had police. And had private homes. In fact, pretty much every instrument that was protected then still exists now.

And they didn't have cars of any kind in 1776.

Technically they didn't have a constitution either, but that's nitpicking.

There really is no logical reason to care about the legal opinions of a bunch of rich old white guys in the late 18th century. Not only was the constitution written in pre-industrial times, but many of the provisions(the electoral college,

Hey, I'm an American born. Even I don't know how the electoral system works.

the two houses, equal representation for each state in the Senate, etc.)

House = Population based representation (hooray!)
Senate = Equal representation

But you have to remember that back in the day, the House was the true representation of the people, the Senate used to be chosen by the governments of their respective states. As America is a Federation, this makes perfect political sense.

Also, the bicameral legislature makes for a government that doesn't bow down and take it in the ass from the President. Even if you only control one house, you still prevent an opposition leader from screwing you over.

That's what you're advocating with your "Europeans have no reason not to love us" position.


You really are the weakest debator ever. You're using this emotive shit. It was three generations ago; that's a fact. And my grandfather fought in the British Army.


We didn't like the Soviets either. Didn't think of that, did you?


America has changed hugely. Your constitution was written before the Industrial age; now you;re in the post-industrial age.

And they didn't have cars of any kind in 1776.


What's wrong with emotions? Fine, let's forget the Three Generations ago. OF course the Europeans didn't like Soviets. You obviously mistake me for some dumb idiot who knows nothing about history. However, if you you guys didnt like the SU, why bash us for sticking up to them?

Because those founders set up the law. And the law is still in place. Therefore since they wrote the laws, we havet two choices. Either ensure our activities conform to the standard we believe they would have accepted in the framework of those laws, or change them.

It's not reverence, it's not worship. It's law. The constitution isn't just words, it's not just sentiment. It is LAW. And when you deal with the LAW you must consider the intent of those who WROTE the law. Their viewpoint is valid because they drafted the law that is still in place.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the bit where I mentioned your constitution.

Did I say that? Well let's look at it. Korea? Seems fair to me? Vietnam? Questionable. Desert Storm? U.N. said go-ahead. Is there anything you disagree with. I would like to see your view, if you would also see mine.

That is your comprehension of the last 50 years of US foreign policy? A couple of wars you might have seen crappy Hollywood films about? My description of your stances as naïve is apt in the "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgement" sense. Get that history book. You are in dire need of it.

You've already proven yourself to be a walking stereotype; I'm sure I could articulate your opinions for you.

Walking Stereotype for their right? Maybe. But you have to believe me when I say that I am willing to listen to you and your opinions. Please, tell me your view on our policy form 1945-1991

That is your comprehension of the last 50 years of US foreign policy? A couple of wars you might have seen crappy Hollywood films about? My description of your stances as naïve is apt in the "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgement" sense. Get that history book. You are in dire need of it.

Arg, once again, I know a lot more occurred. These are some talking points. Tell me what you want to talk about.

What's wrong with emotions? Fine, let's forget the Three Generations ago. OF course the Europeans didn't like Soviets. You obviously mistake me for some dumb idiot who knows nothing about history. However, if you you guys didnt like the SU, why bash us for sticking up to them?
Fuck this, I'm not writing out five points just to be vaguely addressed on just one of them. As the cliche goes, 'put up or shut up'.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the bit where I mentioned your constitution.

you mentioned "worship" of the founders. The founders viewpoints are considered valueable because they wrote the constitution. That is why we constantly question what they would have wanted, because THEY wrote the law therefore it is crucial to ensure we know what THEY were saying.

Now forgive me for being naive maybe I just assumed that in a thread about the US constitution, and you were talking about the founders and why we care about them, I figure it's pretty reasonable assumption to assume that you were talking about the founders views, in regards to the constitution.

Unless you also missed the thread you're typing in.

Moreover if you want to really get technical, you DID ask "You know what ... I don't get?

The worshipping of the "founding fathers""

The answer to which is "because they wrote the constitution, which is the supreme law, therefore we must consider what they would have thought".

So "the constitution" is pretty much the answer to the question you asked. Now if you didn't like the answer, and would prefered to have me give the one you would have prefered, please say so before hand.

Or for that matter, just answer yourself and save us both the time.

America has changed hugely. Your constitution was written before the Industrial age; now you;re in the post-industrial age.


What the hell difference does the span of time make? The system back is (mostly) exactly the same we have now. It's been working for the past 200+ years. We'll stick to it, thanks.

And yes, we can/have edited the constitution. Universal suffrage? Limit to two Presidential terms? Popularly elected Senate? Wasn't always around.

Fuck this, I'm not writing out five points just to be vaguely addressed on just one of them. As the cliche goes, 'put up or shut up'.

Ah, man, relax, what's the point of arguing when you are all shook up? Let me address them in more detail.

It is due to the fact that we Americans are traditionalists. We are apparently highly conserative also... Thats why we still are the leading instigators in most wars in the past 40 years or so. Its sometimes sad to call yourself (as I am one...) an American... :(

Ah, man, relax, what's the point of arguing when you are all shook up? Let me address them in more detail.
Off you go then, I'll give you all night. See ya.

Arg, once again, I know a lot more occurred. These are some talking points. Tell me what you want to talk about.

Not talking points, and I most certainly am not going to write a full page summary of the last 50 years for you at five in the morning.

That's what you're advocating with your "Europeans have no reason not to love us" position.


You really are the weakest debator ever. You're using this emotive shit. It was three generations ago; that's a fact. And my grandfather fought in the British Army.


We didn't like the Soviets either. Didn't think of that, did you?


America has changed hugely. Your constitution was written before the Industrial age; now you;re in the post-industrial age.

And they didn't have cars of any kind in 1776.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you can explain it in more detail. I am saying not to forget History. That includes America's bad times.
2. I wasn't aware you were not allowed to use emotions in a debate. But, fine, I won't use that argument anymore.
3. Yes, I know you disliked the Soviets, but then, why bash us for sticking up against them?
4. What does Cars have to do with anything? Do you want an amendment that states no global warming? The constitution deals primarily with the speeration of Church and State, Freedom of Press and Religion, and the like. It still works well today.

you mentioned "worship" of the founders. The founders viewpoints are considered valueable because they wrote the constitution. That is why we constantly question what they would have wanted, because THEY wrote the law therefore it is crucial to ensure we know what THEY were saying.

Now forgive me for being naive maybe I just assumed that in a thread about the US constitution, and you were talking about the founders and why we care about them, I figure it's pretty reasonable assumption to assume that you were talking about the founders views, in regards to the constitution.

Unless you also missed the thread you're typing in.

No, I'm not asking why some "care" about the founders.

I can perfectly understand why some may sympathise with those who fought for the independence of their country.

And, I hope, you will realise that my post wasn't in relation to your constitution; I clearly made this out by saying that my question about the founding fathers was to be taken "even after the adoration of the constitution". I admire the views enunciated in your Bill of Rights; I admire the concerns of the 'founding fathers' with regards to despotism, and I have no problem with a nation having such a document. This is beyond doubt.

I feel I have made it fairly clear that I am not interested in any views on the Constitution (as I can understand why some may have affinity with the legal basis for their nation), instead interested in another issue (with only a slim relation to the thread, but a relation nonetheless); that of reveration of the 'founding fathers'. I don't understand how men who, yes, wrote a great document in its time, men with all their frailties and proclivities, men of the 19thC, who wouldn't understand our world, are revered so, and how acceptance that a view is in line with theirs is so vital for some. Understanding of this eludes me; the views of white upper-class men of the late 18thC is of no relevance to me, why should it be of such import?

Perhaps you may wish to re-read my post.

Not talking points, and I most certainly am not going to write a full page summary of the last 50 years for you at five in the morning.

I wouldn't want to either. But I was asking what you wanted to discuss? Perhaps the nuclear policy of forcing people off the lands, like the evacuation of Bikini Atoll? or th exploitation of third-world nations, the Iran Hostage Crisis?

Off you go then, I'll give you all night. See ya.

Sleep well. I responded, but I have other things to do now, if that isn't good enough I'll do it again.

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

Generally because they had some pretty good ideas, and the document has been amended repeatedly, meaning that it hasn't only just been "elitist 18th century dead white men" in it. It includes, through the amendments, a broad swath of diverse Americans over a broad swath of time. That the kernel of it was written 215 years ago is of virtually no consequence.

Basically, your constitution does not articulate eternal truths (in the manner of a holy book) but many Americans treat it as such.
The Constitution, while brilliantly conceived, is really just a dry legal document. For pithy philosophical eloquence, look to the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe we were sick of

hearing that we were terrorist sympathisers for not wanting an ineffective war in Iraq (history has proven us right already)
hearing that were weak, appeasing, etc for above
being bullied into accepting rendition flights through our land
being forced to pay for a war we didn't want (all in taxes, some in blood)
terrorist attacks brought about by that war (London, Madrid)
George Bush's proudly-worn ignorance of everything outside America


you get the idea
Bush and his policies had, at best, ~50% support in this country. Now it's around one-third. Don't use the stupidity of part of the population to demonize all.

You know what, even after the adoration of the constitution, I don't get?

The worshipping of the "founding fathers".

Almost everything comes down to "and I think it is what the founding fathers would have wanted", or "and I think the founding fathers would agree".

Seriously? How are the views of a group of rich men in the late 18thC relevant to the happenings of the everyday man in the early 21stC?
Those "rich white men" were some of the wisest and most noble people in history. They could have set up a system that benefited them and them only, but they cared more about the welfare of the nation.

Did you know that George Washington's generals approached him with a plan to overthrow Congress and install him as King, but that Washington refused? It would have worked, too, as Washington was quite popular. But he cared about democracy more than personal ambition.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, one of the purest expressions of democracy ever written.

James Madison crafted our system of checks and balances, which has preserved our government and prevented major abuses of power for over two centuries.

These men were both brilliant and idealistic -- a rare combination.

Have you ever read the US constitution, or even seen whats in it? Separation of Church and state, freedom of speech, civil liberties and human rights etc. etc.

Unless you are a Christian or hard core conservative, why would you oppose any of those? I think your anti-American views are carrying over to something you know NOTHING about.

I have read the constitution and studied it in school and outside of school but obviously you have not. If you had you'd know that neither the words or the concept "separation of church and state" is contained inside of it. You also didn't mention anything from the origional Constituion only the Amendments. And now obviously because I suggested that there might be a form of government superior to one hammered out through compromise more than 200 years ago I must hate America. You're even worse than the guy claiming that Europe's governments were all founded in the 18th century, when in reality most were founded(or underwent extreme constitutional reforms) in the 20th century.

Hey Brits, why not toss the Magna Carta? It was written like a thousand years ago by a bunch of old white men, so it couldn't possibly have relevance today. "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed... except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land"? Hell, you don't need that anymore! You have cars now!

:p

See, the reason why documents like this are so important is that they lay out fundamental truths about government that don't change with time. The idea that the primary purpose of government should be to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens is just as valid today as it was 200+ years ago. Governments had a tendency to expand and become more oppressive 200 years ago, and they have that same tendency today. The separation of church and state was important 200 years ago, and it's still important today. All of your iPods and mobile phones do not change these basic, timeless truths about government.

Furthermore, our Constitution has the ability to adapt to new cultural and technological developments via the amending process.

Also, the Founding Fathers, for all of their flaws and hypocrisies, were a group of truly brilliant and gifted men.

I have read the constitution and studied it in school and outside of school but obviously you have not. If you had you'd know that neither the words or the concept "separation of church and state" is contained inside of it.

Go back and re-read the First Amendment.

Hey Brits, why not toss the Magna Carta? It was written like a thousand years ago by a bunch of old white men, so it couldn't possibly have relevance today. "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed... except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land"? Hell, you don't need that anymore! You have cars now!

What would be the point in "tossing" it?

Only three clauses are in force, anyway (1, 39, 40).

And it's not the Magna Carta. It's just Magna Carta.

Was that your silly point I just saw disappearing?

Those "rich white men" were some of the wisest and most noble people in history. They could have set up a system that benefited them and them only, but they cared more about the welfare of the nation.

Did you know that George Washington's generals approached him with a plan to overthrow Congress and install him as King, but that Washington refused? It would have worked, too, as Washington was quite popular. But he cared about democracy more than personal ambition.

You don't say?

I never heard that before. /sarcasm

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, one of the purest expressions of democracy ever written.

James Madison crafted our system of checks and balances, which has preserved our government and prevented major abuses of power for over two centuries.

These men were both brilliant and idealistic -- a rare combination.

Again, you have misinterpreted me.

Try again.

It doesnt?

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...

The Supreme Court has ruled that the preamble holds no legal significance. In essence, the preamble is the Constitution's equivalent of a thesis statement; it detailed the objective of Constitution while the body of the document laid out how it planned to bring about said objective.

And as was mentioned before, the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to provide welfare (in the modern sense) to the States.

America has changed hugely. Your constitution was written before the Industrial age; now you;re in the post-industrial age.
The thing is, the system still works. We've been 230 years without major changes to the government. We've also had very few constitutional crisis (Compared with some European states that seems to like having them every year or so).

It doesn't make much sense to use it as a moral authority, but as a legal foundation it's still going.

Not bad for a document that people thought would last maybe 20 years before needing to be re-written.

See, the reason why documents like this are so important is that they lay out fundamental truths about government that don't change with time. The idea that the primary purpose of government should be to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens is just as valid today as it was 200+ years ago. Governments had a tendency to expand and become more oppressive 200 years ago, and they have that same tendency today. The separation of church and state was important 200 years ago, and it's still important today. All of your iPods and mobile phones do not change these basic, timeless truths about government.

Furthermore, our Constitution has the ability to adapt to new cultural and technological developments via the amending process.

Also, the Founding Fathers, for all of their flaws and hypocrisies, were a group of truly brilliant and gifted men.



Go back and re-read the First Amendment.

Not only has technology advanced in the last 200 years but the political situation in the U.S. is completely different. Rather than being a confederation of sovereign states, we are now a cohesive nation and states, far from being independent sovereign entities, are now little more than administrative districts. I'm not saying we should scrap the whole thing, I'm just saying that the document carries no moral significance. We shouldn't be so hesitant in reforming the government just because we might have to change some sacrosanct document. Over the past 200 years our government has changed completely, but there are only so many things that can be "interpreted" to be constitutional and if real structural reform is going to take place we need to loose our qualms about offending the sensibilities of 18th century slaveholders. The Founding Fathers are dead, their America has passed away after centuries of wars, change, and growth. It is time for us to embrace modern America and make political decisions based on modern realities.

Not only has technology advanced in the last 200 years but the political situation in the U.S. is completely different. Rather than being a confederation of sovereign states, we are now a cohesive nation and states, far from being independent sovereign entities, are now little more than administrative districts. I'm not saying we should scrap the whole thing, I'm just saying that the document carries no moral significance. We shouldn't be so hesitant in reforming the government just because we might have to change some sacrosanct document. Over the past 200 years our government has changed completely, but there are only so many things that can be "interpreted" to be constitutional and if real structural reform is going to take place we need to loose our qualms about offending the sensibilities of 18th century slaveholders. The Founding Fathers are dead, their America has passed away after centuries of wars, change, and growth. It is time for us to embrace modern America and make political decisions based on modern realities.
And just what needs to be changed to deal with the realities of modern America?

Since when does newer automatically equal better?

You don't say?

I never heard that before. /sarcasm
Sure, it sounds corny, but it's still true.

Again, you have misinterpreted me.

Try again.
Again? I responded to you once.

And what exactly did I misinterpret?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the preamble holds no legal significance. In essence, the preamble is the Constitution's equivalent of a thesis statement; it detailed the objective of Constitution while the body of the document laid out how it planned to bring about said objective.

And as was mentioned before, the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to provide welfare (in the modern sense) to the States.

it's not ENTIRELY true. It's not that the preamble holds no legal significance, it is that it it does not hold significance that is not rearticulated in later parts. Which is to say that it doesn't say anything that is not said elsewhere.

Given that we have a functioning government that has its bad moments, but which is corrected when it has them, and a government that is one of the most stable in the world, I'm very confused by statements saying that the Constitution is out of date. Rather than just saying that it is old, perhaps those making these claims could instead offer examples of its failings.

Also, please remember that the Constitution is not set in stone. We can change it, if the issues is important enough to merit us amending it. We've done it before, and it may happen again soon (there has been renewed discussion over the Equal Rights Amendment in the last week or two).

Both sides need to shut the hell up already. Europe needs to get over and deal with its inferiority complex. Really ... it's getting quite old. American's need to stop throwing WWII into Europes face. France and England are our allies now, as they were in the 1940s. Allies = friends and when you help a friend out do you throw it in his face later when he disagrees with you? The problem here is personal biases based on opinions and instead of trying to find common ground to agree on, both sides bitch and moan like little school girls fighting over a boy. America is reaping what it's sown over the years, but just remember that by placing all the blame on America for failed foreign policy will come back to bite Europe and the rest of the world in the ass.

U.S. Constitution is to America what Europes love (which I'll never understand) for Socialism is to them. Europe needs to deal with the fact that America paved the way for mordern Democracy with the proverbial "Shot heard round the world" which heled spread Democratic reforms around the world. Those Governments of Democracy took root in countries differently. Europe your system(s) of Democracy with its Socailst leanings isn't any better than America's Democracy with its Capitalist leanings. Both sides have pros and cons and biases to go with them. Both sides need to accept this too.

I'm not giving America 100% of the credit for modern Democracy either. I know Ancient Greece and Rome, as well as the Magna Carta, where major players for inspiration as well.

Both sides need to shut the hell up already. Europe needs to get over and deal with its inferiority complex. Really ... it's getting quite old. American's need to stop throwing WWII into Europes face. France and England are our allies now, as they were in the 1940s. Allies = friends and when you help a friend out do you throw it in his face later when he disagrees with you? The problem here is personal biases based on opinions and instead of trying to find common ground to agree on, both sides bitch and moan like little school girls fighting over a boy. America is reaping what it's sown over the years, but just remember that by placing all the blame on America for failed foreign policy will come back to bite Europe and the rest of the world in the ass.

U.S. Constitution is to America what Europes love (which I'll never understand) for Socialism is to them. Europe needs to deal with the fact that America paved the way for mordern Democracy with the proverbial "Shot heard round the world" which heled spread Democratic reforms around the world. Those Governments of Democracy took root in countries differently. Europe your system(s) of Democracy with its Socailst leanings isn't any better than America's Democracy with its Capitalist leanings. Both sides have pros and cons and biases to go with them. Both sides need to accept this too.

I'm not giving America 100% of the credit for modern Democracy either. I know Ancient Greece and Rome, as well as the Magna Carta, where major players for inspiration as well.

I, uh, hate to interrupt your "olive branch", but... You clearly don't know the first thing about American Gov't or European government. Capitalism is not enshrined in the Constitution, and Socialism is not a part of Europe's governmental structure, it is a result of their political culture.

I might, instead, hold that the Constitution is for the U.S. what the Ideals of the Enlightenment mean for many Europeans, but even that would not be accurate.

From my observations, the respect for the Constitution among Americans is at its lowest since it was ratified. There has been a semi-accepted belief among most Americans that the founding fathers possessed some transcendental ideas and implemented them when constructing the Constitution, but revisionist views of history are finding themselves being taught more and more.

The bottom line, though, is that the Constitution is a national document adopted by the American people, and who should decide how it is used but them? The Constitution is not outdated as long as it still has meaning to them.

I, uh, hate to interrupt your "olive branch", but... You clearly don't know the first thing about American Gov't or European government. Capitalism is not enshrined in the Constitution, and Socialism is not a part of Europe's governmental structure, it is a result of their political culture.

I might, instead, hold that the Constitution is for the U.S. what the Ideals of the Enlightenment mean for many Europeans, but even that would not be accurate.

That's what you have to nitpick about?

I never once said that Capitalism was 'enshired' in our Constitution. If I lack a knowledge of American and European Government, then you must lack the knowledge of word comprehension.

I said America has Capitalist leanings. Capitalism has a major role in not just our economy but our form of Democracy. To admit otherwise is ignorance, otherwise we would have a much more major Welfare system in play than we do now. Socialism, from what I can tell and any Europeans please correct me, plays an important (if not major) role in how many European countires run their form of Democracy. Political culture encompasses economic, political and governmental structures of life. What you are trying to do is argue semantics. If you really want to I'm game though; I'm bored right now anyways.

That's what you have to nitpick about?

I never once said that Capitalism was 'enshired' in our Constitution. If I lack a knowledge of American and European Government, then you must lack the knowledge of word comprehension.

I said America has Capitalist leanings. Capitalism has a major role in not just our economy but our form of Democracy. To admit otherwise is ignorance, otherwise we would have a much more major Welfare system in play than we do now. Socialism, from what I can tell and any Europeans please correct me, plays an important (if not major) role in how many European countires run their form of Democracy. Political culture encompasses economic, political and governmental structures of life. What you are trying to do is argue semantics. If you really want to I'm game though; I'm bored right now anyways.

Word Comprehension is, indeed, a problem for one of the two of us. To say that Capitalism is connected to our structure of our electoral system (Democracy) is incorrect. Our legal system is a controlled capitalistic one, and our political culture tends towards Capitalism. In a socialistic culture, with our model over government, socialism would be the pre-dominant economic model. Similarly, in Europe, the manner in which they vote does not pre-bias them towards socialism. In a culture that was strongly biased towards Capitalism with a European structure, Capitalism would be the order of the day.

I'm not arguing semantics, I'm trying to ensure that Americans don't make it so easy to mock us. I don't know about you, but I'm damn sick of being mocked for something I never did in the first place.

Just remember not all Americans are idiots. just like all Europeans aren't.:)

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

Several reasons. First, because those dead white men happened to comprise one of the wisest and most well-thought assemblages in history, with a collection of men whose knowledge about ancient governments and modern philosophy likely exceeds any historical assemblage before or since. Any modern comparisons are almost ridiculous to contemplate. Second, speaking with reverence about the founders is shorthand for speaking with reverence for the law itself and the rule thereof. Insofar as respect for the rule of law is a necessary prerequisite for any civil society, we encourage reverence for the founders to teach this.

In short, we are the inheritors of an intellectual and political heritage unheard of in organized governments. Athens killed or exiled its great theoretical minds in favor or men like Alcibiades after a century of democracy. Rome overthrew Cicero to install Julius Caesar. France's road to democracy had to go through Robespierre and Napoleon to even approach legitemacy. England fought a nonstop battle-royale lasting roughly 3 centuries between Lancasters and Yorks, Catholics and Protestants, Royalists and Roundheads, and Jacobins and Loyalists to approach democracy. We made the first, and still one of the most enduring systems of democratic republican government ever known, and the closest we can come to anything like what happened in Athens, Rome, France, or England is a bunch of farmers led by Daniel Shays revolting because of a lack of back pay. That says something for just how good our system is, and how good it remains. Insofar as those 18th century elite white men helped build that system, it indicates that they were the right men not just for their time, but for any and all time.

Why do you people use it as a moral justification as if it were some sort of holy book? Why do the views of elitist 18th century dead white men matter more than the opinions of America's people today?

The Constitution is a protection, however flimsy, for people like me from the opinions of most of America's people today. Without it the majority would rule unchecked; there would be no protections for the minorities.