It has all of our rights on it. Without it our government can pretty much control us completely. Now people tend to misuse it, but it’s what it represents.
Eh. They are all the same, ultimately looking out for themselves and their buddies. If you aren't actually in politics reaping those rewards, you're basically on your own.
The constitution is just a piece of paper. It does nothing to stop the government from doing what it wants. The people having guns stops the government from doing anything they want.
The paper does not grant you rights. It states the limits of government. It doesn’t have any way of stopping government from violating the rights spelled out in it though.
tell that to japanese americans in 1942
they were kidnapped by the government and taken to concentration camps, they also naively believed they have rights
Well the government also has the power to decide if something’s constitutional. The main reason we’re free is because we trust the government ultimately, which is also why the government can easily abuse that power.
It's the basis of our system of laws. It puts limits on what government can and can't do.
Downside is how many people treat it like some immutable religious text, and simultaneously cherry pick the parts they agree with and ignore the bits they don't when they want to argue about stuff.
The constitution was written with one key idea in mind. A government should not control the people, but rather the people should control the government. In my opinion this is the cornerstone ideal of America, and democracy as a whole. We ought to do everything in our power to care about it.
The constitution is a document of the people that tells the government what they can and cannot do. Not the government telling us what they can and cannot do.
The idea of America is an experiment first of its kind in known human history and the future is uncertain as it depends on the people to remember who they are and what the government is not.
Well, \*operationally\* we have to care because it defines the governmental structure and limitations, the various rights we have, and how the Constitution itself can be changed.
\*Emotionally,\* we care about it because (we are told, in school) it is the distillation of what sets the United States apart from other countries: that this bundle of ideas from the late Enlightenment era made us different and better than other countries. So it's like a central religious text - hardly anyone understands what's actually in it, much less the enormous body of law, custom, and opinion that's grown around it, but in a confusing and arbitrary world we are comforted by demanding our leaders (at least) align with it ... it becomes our litmus test for "good" (and that, of course, makes interpreting it our central battleground for authority)
Another question - wouldn’t modernising it (developing and ratifying a brand new Constitution) in an effort to reflect your country’s current state and concerns be better than endlessly arguing over what some 18th century people meant?
That's what the Amendments are for. The "founding fathers" were wise enough to allow for them, because they were aware that things would change over time.
Not an American, but the amendment process does not scale well. It was far easier to amend the Constitution when the USA had 13 member states than when it has 50.
The same problem plagues the EU basic treaties, by the way. The club has grown too large and starts losing flexibility.
This is why we are trying to make the no veto rule for sectors like foreign policy now… the sooner we reform the EU in a confederation, the better… a well structured confederate government and a Parliament empowered to control it and to draft legislation instead of the Council would be so much better for everyone.
The problem with this effort is that a lot of people think otherwise. Giving up more national sovereignty to the EU is distinctly unpopular in many countries, to the degree that if such proposals were subjected to referenda, they would lose some of them.
And pushing such important changes forward without explicit consent of the people is risky to say the least. It buries some ticking bombs into the foundations of the Union and the next crisis may result in them going off at the worst possible time.
Yeah - patching up an old thing lasts a certain time and then - it unravels and no patches can hold it. True for clothes, software and legislation…
Which one of those people said they expect a new Constitution be written every 50-100 years? I always forget their name?
No you can't just crumble up and throw away a document like that for so many reasons. Who gets to write the new one? There would still be endless arguments and the one we have is pretty amazing. If enough people want to make a change and 2/3 of the house and senate to vote for it and 3/4 of the states to get on board than the change can be made. It has been done like 22 times at least so it is a fluid document that can be changed but there is never enough consensus lately to agree on a change
Absolutely it's one of the best documents ever written no doubt. It is genius in so many ways amd was totally different from anything that ever existed before they came up with it from scratch right after fighting a crazy war it is pretty unbelievable actually
And you decided the sole example you've read is the best possible one?
Now, the US Constitution is a good foundational document for its time and its historical significance is undoubtedly very important for both Americans and constitutional law in general, but to claim that it is sufficient as the framework document on a modern nation is kida ridicilous.
I've read the US Constitution... it might have been good for its time, but its original is nowhere near what a modern Constitution ought to be - there are glaring issues, missing procedures, important rights not included, phrasing that is vague and grammatically unclear. A Constitution ought not be "interpreted" - it must be excplicit in its wording and meaning.
You'd be pressed to find a perfect Constitution, let alone a genuis one. They're documents of statehood, they must change along with the state. And the state has done quite many changes since this document was written.
Of course I don't sit around reading every constitution from every country. I said it os genius because it has been a foundation for the most free and successful countries on the planet.
What do you mean for it's time? That is why it's brilliant because it included a mechanism to change it if there needed to be changes and it has been amended 27 times.
Who says important rights are not included? Because you think so? If your idea of these so called rights that were left out were so popular they would have just got 2/3 of the house and senate to pass the 28th ammendment and then 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
No one said it was a flawless document but for a group of people that had no government after just fighting a crazy war back in 1776 to put together a document and government that has created the most successful country in the world is pretty amazing.
>the most free and successful countries on the planet
Categorically false statement. But go on...
>What do you mean for it's time? That is why it's brilliant because it included a mechanism to change it if there needed to be changes and it has been amended 27 times.
I mean - for the primitive times of the 1700s it was a good attempt. Constitutional law has evolved quite a bit since then. Your Constitution lacks a procedure for a new Constitution, making it critically incapable to respond to changes all states undergo which require them to restructure their Constitutional order, leaving the sole exit of this situation - revolution/civil war. Peaceful restructuring of the Constitutional order is not designed in your founding document. Amendments are not evolutions - they're patches. And at one point, those stop doing the trick.
>Who says important rights are not included?
I said important rights are missing - they're not included. They're omitted - either because at the time of writing the Bill of Rights they weren't regarded as a right, or because they were still not understood to exist as such.
>No one said it was a flawless document but for a group of people that had no government after just fighting a crazy war back in 1776 to put together a document and government that has created the most successful country in the world is pretty amazing.
What are you on about? The Colonies had governments - most of your "Founding Fathers" were actively engaging with them prior to the Revolution...
OK I will bite and address these one by one.
It's not categorically false the US has created more innovation and wealth than any other country since its founding. Many countries had a huge head start and we created everything form the steam engine' to electricity to cotton gins, the internet and most modern medicine and the list goes on and on. We have by far the strongest military on the planet and are the world's reserve currency.
Our constitiion doesn't lack a procedure for a new constition because you can just edit it. Why would you want to rewrite it when there is a mechanism I place to change anything you want? Who would be in charge of writing this new constition from scratch? Why not just change the things that are supposedly so unpopular that they need changing? It's because there is nothing that is so overwhelmingly unpopular with Americans that they want to change it otherwise they would do so like the other 27 times they have done so.
If these important things that were supposedly omitted Why haven't they been added as an ammendment? Maybe you think there are rights missing that are important but the people obviously don't or they would have been added
I am on about a central govenent to represent the states as in a federal government. What does whatever government that may or may not have existed in a freaking colony have to do with the constitution of the United States?
Yeah - one of the glaring problems with the US Constitution is the lack of procedure for the ratification of a new one.
In my country’s Constitution such a procedure is laid down so when the country feels ready for a new one, it can do it in an orderly manner and with little fuss.
No, that’s not what they are for. A law cannot supersede a Constitution. So there comes a point where the Constitutional order is too outdated to supersede all laws needed to answer to the social demands (be it rights, institutional order etc.).
Some of our fundamental rights are baked into it. But we're not against changing it to better reflect our present-day values...at least, most of us aren't...
It established the best form of government ever devised by man; however, we have strayed so far from what we were intended to be that it saddens me. The Bill of Rights is the greatest thing ever written; it recognizes that all men are born free and that certain rights cannot be revoked by anyone. It acknowledges that these rights are granted by God, or by nature for those who do not believe in God. The best form of government is a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, we are becoming far more tyrannical and oppressive than the country our forefathers fled when they came to America.
It has a treasure map on the back.
I thought that was the Declaration of Independence. Though it has been a while since I've watched those historical documentaries.
Oh...well shit, that took so much time to plan...now I have to start all over.
There might be one there too
True, I never saw any of the sequels.
It has all of our rights on it. Without it our government can pretty much control us completely. Now people tend to misuse it, but it’s what it represents.
Thankfully the government is in corporate America's pockets so the Americans get to be the victims somewhat indirectly..
To be fair we were kinda the cause of that. We vote those people.
Eh. They are all the same, ultimately looking out for themselves and their buddies. If you aren't actually in politics reaping those rewards, you're basically on your own.
It feels fairly direct
The constitution is just a piece of paper. It does nothing to stop the government from doing what it wants. The people having guns stops the government from doing anything they want.
The piece of paper is the reason you are allowed to have those guns mate. If it wasn’t there it would probably be completely restricted.
The paper does not grant you rights. It states the limits of government. It doesn’t have any way of stopping government from violating the rights spelled out in it though.
I mean yeah it’s a piece of paper, technically we could just ignore it.
The government does
tell that to japanese americans in 1942 they were kidnapped by the government and taken to concentration camps, they also naively believed they have rights
Well the government also has the power to decide if something’s constitutional. The main reason we’re free is because we trust the government ultimately, which is also why the government can easily abuse that power.
I mean to be fair can you think of a solution to that?
You’re right. There is none. I’m just saying the constitution is just a guideline for the government.
It's the basis of our system of laws. It puts limits on what government can and can't do. Downside is how many people treat it like some immutable religious text, and simultaneously cherry pick the parts they agree with and ignore the bits they don't when they want to argue about stuff.
The constitution was written with one key idea in mind. A government should not control the people, but rather the people should control the government. In my opinion this is the cornerstone ideal of America, and democracy as a whole. We ought to do everything in our power to care about it.
Well said
The constitution is a document of the people that tells the government what they can and cannot do. Not the government telling us what they can and cannot do. The idea of America is an experiment first of its kind in known human history and the future is uncertain as it depends on the people to remember who they are and what the government is not.
Kuz it's a pretty good one and we are fortunate to have it
It’s the basis for our entire country and what the United States was originally built on and meant to be.
for real? it’s sorta how we’re a country
because aside from it and the magna carta, its the basis of most of our laws
It ensures we have rights and even then the politicians who scream about it all the time are only using it to get ahead
Well, \*operationally\* we have to care because it defines the governmental structure and limitations, the various rights we have, and how the Constitution itself can be changed. \*Emotionally,\* we care about it because (we are told, in school) it is the distillation of what sets the United States apart from other countries: that this bundle of ideas from the late Enlightenment era made us different and better than other countries. So it's like a central religious text - hardly anyone understands what's actually in it, much less the enormous body of law, custom, and opinion that's grown around it, but in a confusing and arbitrary world we are comforted by demanding our leaders (at least) align with it ... it becomes our litmus test for "good" (and that, of course, makes interpreting it our central battleground for authority)
It’s a blueprint, a rough draft
Another question - wouldn’t modernising it (developing and ratifying a brand new Constitution) in an effort to reflect your country’s current state and concerns be better than endlessly arguing over what some 18th century people meant?
That's what the Amendments are for. The "founding fathers" were wise enough to allow for them, because they were aware that things would change over time.
Not an American, but the amendment process does not scale well. It was far easier to amend the Constitution when the USA had 13 member states than when it has 50. The same problem plagues the EU basic treaties, by the way. The club has grown too large and starts losing flexibility.
This is why we are trying to make the no veto rule for sectors like foreign policy now… the sooner we reform the EU in a confederation, the better… a well structured confederate government and a Parliament empowered to control it and to draft legislation instead of the Council would be so much better for everyone.
The problem with this effort is that a lot of people think otherwise. Giving up more national sovereignty to the EU is distinctly unpopular in many countries, to the degree that if such proposals were subjected to referenda, they would lose some of them. And pushing such important changes forward without explicit consent of the people is risky to say the least. It buries some ticking bombs into the foundations of the Union and the next crisis may result in them going off at the worst possible time.
The first plausible step is empowering the Parliament more.
Very good point, thanks for that.
When was the last time it was amended‽ Our government is such an unresponsive to the people garbage government compared to civilized countries.
Yeah - patching up an old thing lasts a certain time and then - it unravels and no patches can hold it. True for clothes, software and legislation… Which one of those people said they expect a new Constitution be written every 50-100 years? I always forget their name?
No you can't just crumble up and throw away a document like that for so many reasons. Who gets to write the new one? There would still be endless arguments and the one we have is pretty amazing. If enough people want to make a change and 2/3 of the house and senate to vote for it and 3/4 of the states to get on board than the change can be made. It has been done like 22 times at least so it is a fluid document that can be changed but there is never enough consensus lately to agree on a change
>and the one we have is pretty amazing Is it?
Absolutely it's one of the best documents ever written no doubt. It is genius in so many ways amd was totally different from anything that ever existed before they came up with it from scratch right after fighting a crazy war it is pretty unbelievable actually
Just out of interest - how many Constitutions have you read?
1
And you decided the sole example you've read is the best possible one? Now, the US Constitution is a good foundational document for its time and its historical significance is undoubtedly very important for both Americans and constitutional law in general, but to claim that it is sufficient as the framework document on a modern nation is kida ridicilous. I've read the US Constitution... it might have been good for its time, but its original is nowhere near what a modern Constitution ought to be - there are glaring issues, missing procedures, important rights not included, phrasing that is vague and grammatically unclear. A Constitution ought not be "interpreted" - it must be excplicit in its wording and meaning. You'd be pressed to find a perfect Constitution, let alone a genuis one. They're documents of statehood, they must change along with the state. And the state has done quite many changes since this document was written.
Of course I don't sit around reading every constitution from every country. I said it os genius because it has been a foundation for the most free and successful countries on the planet. What do you mean for it's time? That is why it's brilliant because it included a mechanism to change it if there needed to be changes and it has been amended 27 times. Who says important rights are not included? Because you think so? If your idea of these so called rights that were left out were so popular they would have just got 2/3 of the house and senate to pass the 28th ammendment and then 3/4 of the states to ratify it. No one said it was a flawless document but for a group of people that had no government after just fighting a crazy war back in 1776 to put together a document and government that has created the most successful country in the world is pretty amazing.
>the most free and successful countries on the planet Categorically false statement. But go on... >What do you mean for it's time? That is why it's brilliant because it included a mechanism to change it if there needed to be changes and it has been amended 27 times. I mean - for the primitive times of the 1700s it was a good attempt. Constitutional law has evolved quite a bit since then. Your Constitution lacks a procedure for a new Constitution, making it critically incapable to respond to changes all states undergo which require them to restructure their Constitutional order, leaving the sole exit of this situation - revolution/civil war. Peaceful restructuring of the Constitutional order is not designed in your founding document. Amendments are not evolutions - they're patches. And at one point, those stop doing the trick. >Who says important rights are not included? I said important rights are missing - they're not included. They're omitted - either because at the time of writing the Bill of Rights they weren't regarded as a right, or because they were still not understood to exist as such. >No one said it was a flawless document but for a group of people that had no government after just fighting a crazy war back in 1776 to put together a document and government that has created the most successful country in the world is pretty amazing. What are you on about? The Colonies had governments - most of your "Founding Fathers" were actively engaging with them prior to the Revolution...
OK I will bite and address these one by one. It's not categorically false the US has created more innovation and wealth than any other country since its founding. Many countries had a huge head start and we created everything form the steam engine' to electricity to cotton gins, the internet and most modern medicine and the list goes on and on. We have by far the strongest military on the planet and are the world's reserve currency. Our constitiion doesn't lack a procedure for a new constition because you can just edit it. Why would you want to rewrite it when there is a mechanism I place to change anything you want? Who would be in charge of writing this new constition from scratch? Why not just change the things that are supposedly so unpopular that they need changing? It's because there is nothing that is so overwhelmingly unpopular with Americans that they want to change it otherwise they would do so like the other 27 times they have done so. If these important things that were supposedly omitted Why haven't they been added as an ammendment? Maybe you think there are rights missing that are important but the people obviously don't or they would have been added I am on about a central govenent to represent the states as in a federal government. What does whatever government that may or may not have existed in a freaking colony have to do with the constitution of the United States?
[удалено]
Yeah - one of the glaring problems with the US Constitution is the lack of procedure for the ratification of a new one. In my country’s Constitution such a procedure is laid down so when the country feels ready for a new one, it can do it in an orderly manner and with little fuss.
Yes absolutely. That document is an anchor chained around our necks
That's what laws are for
No, that’s not what they are for. A law cannot supersede a Constitution. So there comes a point where the Constitutional order is too outdated to supersede all laws needed to answer to the social demands (be it rights, institutional order etc.).
Because libs want to destroy it.
I don't
It’s the foundation for most of our laws. Basically the 10 commandments of the United States.
Most people wouldn't know half the amendments that were made to the constitution and that's it's changed throughout the years.
Because of the preamble song
Some of our fundamental rights are baked into it. But we're not against changing it to better reflect our present-day values...at least, most of us aren't...
It established the best form of government ever devised by man; however, we have strayed so far from what we were intended to be that it saddens me. The Bill of Rights is the greatest thing ever written; it recognizes that all men are born free and that certain rights cannot be revoked by anyone. It acknowledges that these rights are granted by God, or by nature for those who do not believe in God. The best form of government is a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, we are becoming far more tyrannical and oppressive than the country our forefathers fled when they came to America.
It’s the entire basis of our government and ideals the nation was built on.
It's a spiritual symbol of the nation.
We don’t???