What's so good about the US Constitution?

[Jet]

A lot of people here talk about the constitution as if it's inerrant. Why? It's written badly. It contains outdated ideas. It's vague. Its avoidance of specifics is often disastrous.

Why do people here adore this piece of paper so much?

[gregh]

the thing about the constitution is that while it is outdated as you say it, it has provided a consistant backing for ruling a country. while the paper itself is outdated throught he courts, and amendments to the consitution it has been updated time and time again.

Again the real power comes through the courts on this. Think of the constitution as a general framework for a house. you can have an old house with modern ideas and innovations, but yet still retain the structure which has not fallen in yet, and has stood up against the test of time.

it has worked for over 200 years now, and through the courts applying the old framework to new and emerging issues it has continued to work. If there is ever a large enough problem that must be addressed then it can be changed through the amendment process.

If it was so poorly written, and so disastrous as you like to call it, then the whole thing would have fallen apart and a new one would have had to be created. Yet again it has stood the test of time through out our short history as a nation. It represents this nation and the framework which it operates, i love my country (and yes a liberal just said that) and because this "paper" represents the framework of my country i adore it as well.

nothing is ever perfect, but if they work who am i to argue?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Because this country is in theory a constitutional republic maybe?

[Jet]

The fact that it's old doesn't make it good. And in fact, it doesn't work; the modern list of rights has had to be written by the courts because the bill of rights is so vague; the electoral college stopped being useful around 1820; the list of Congressional powers is very lacking in a modern society; and so on. The reason it's not been rewritten is that Americans have had blind faith in it, not the other way around, and that there's never been broad enough a coalition for a complete rewrite.


Now, GreatWyrm, you've just explained why there should be a constitution, but not why the current one is good.

[white rice]

If it weren't for judicial review, our government wouldn't function it does today. Spin that truth to however you like.

We keep the current Constitution because it has worked peacefully and there hasn't been a bloody transfer yet. There has been shady dealings for the presidency in our past, but for most people, the Constitution has been a source of national pride. It is the oldest living government document in the world.

So to answer the question, pride? Besides, it would be bloody hard to write up another Constitution and have 50 states ratify it....

[Thrazymakkuz]

My favorite part of the Constitution is the mixture of the 18th and 21st amendments. We basically have two amendments that say, "Don't do this, it's really important that you don't do this," and then, "Nevermind."

The National Archives Experience: Amendments 11-27

white rice

"It is the oldest living government document in the world."

Really? Can you prove this?

[gregh]

The bill of rights was ment to be vague, and was allowed room for expansion. Do you think if the founders would have granted civil liberties to say blacks that it would have been ratified? no. my making areas vauge and subject to interpretation they left it open to change with society and be modernized.

As far as the electoral college, you know i think it still works. Am i a little bitter about the 2000 election, yeah, but the system worked. For example, had there been popular election because of human error in casting ballots, the amount between bush and gore would have been disputed to this day. there are always large numbers of ballots that due to various defects like the hanging chads that you heard about for the first time, that are questioned, and analyzed by election commision officials. some of these are throw out, some of these are simply a judgement call. Because of this with that small of a margin it would have been impossible to ever determine a winner. By having the electoral college there was a system in place that if this should ever happen, it provides a legitimacy for the winner. The only reason democracies work, if you might recall back to your high school civics class, is through legitimacy of power. If the Gore would have been elected on questionable terms, such as the accuracy of ballots, then it would have thrown the system into chaos. By using the electoral college, through the advice of the supreme court, the election was legitimated, and no real fuss was throw about it. At least not to the point where it would compromise the system.

The reason the Constitution has never been attempted to be rewritten is that it would be impossible. Just to get an amendment passed it requires 2/3 vote in both houses. Imagine trying what it would take to get a new constitution, which would likely have to be amended by 2/3 or 3/4 of the states. this would be impossible. There is no way you would ever get a super majority of the states to agree on a totaly new document.

[Suburbanite]

The amazingness of the Constitution is that it is the people's way of trumping the Government. It should be anyways. But politicians are in control of it now. They get us stupid and then they rob us blind.

[Jet]

We keep the current Constitution because it has worked peacefully and there hasn't been a bloody transfer yet.

European countries' constitutions "worked," too, and yet after WW2 all European democracies, even those that continued to be democracies till WW2 such as France, had rewrites.

It is the oldest living government document in the world.

1. You're wrong; the Magna Carta is, and it predates the US Constitution by ~550 years.
2. Again, old doesn't mean good.

The bill of rights was ment to be vague, and was allowed room for expansion. Do you think if the founders would have granted civil liberties to say blacks that it would have been ratified? no. my making areas vauge and subject to interpretation they left it open to change with society and be modernized.

On the contrary; this poses many problems. Many modern rights are the invention of the courts, so they're relatively easy to overturn. The right to bear arms needs to be repealed ASAP. The patchwork system of the constitution makes it inefficient; do you know that it's constitutional to deprive all gays and atheists of theri right to vote?

As far as the electoral college, you know i think it still works.

Yep - with Californians and New Yorkers and Texans not having a say in the election (if any of them is close, then the whole election is always a landslide anyway), with each Wyomingite having 4 votes for president, and with county-level election laws that violate the tenet of equality under the law, it works perfectly...

The reason the Constitution has never been attempted to be rewritten is that it would be impossible. Just to get an amendment passed it requires 2/3 vote in both houses. Imagine trying what it would take to get a new constitution, which would likely have to be amended by 2/3 or 3/4 of the states. this would be impossible. There is no way you would ever get a super majority of the states to agree on a totaly new document.

Exactly. Unfortuantely for you, it *still* doesn't make the constitution good; it only means that it's hard to rewrite it. It certainly doesn't screaming that something is unconstitutional and assuming that it necessarily makes it bad.

[Jet]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, The amazingness of the Constitution is that it is the people's way of trumping the Government. It should be anyways. But politicians are in control of it now. They get us stupid and then they rob us blind.

What? The people have never trumped the government, constitution or no constitution.

[Suburbanite]

The Constitution is by the people for the people, or it was, and the Constitution trumps government, or at least it should

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

The fact that it's old doesn't make it good.

So what makes you assume that I debate in ethos? Sorry, I prefer logos. And as yet, you have yet to make a case.

The reason it's not been rewritten is that Americans have had blind faith in it, not the other way around,

But I have to admit this line is odd. Why would a sheet of paper have blind faith in the people???

[white rice]

Originally posted by PeterWolf,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PeterWolf,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>white rice Really? Can you prove this?[/b]

Sorry, I mangled the wording by interchanging Constitution as a "living document". Documents like the Magna Carta are much older but isn't law in British society. I can say that it is the oldest written national constitution in use. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?idxref=194987

I've read in some articles that it's the oldest governing document in use in the world today. http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=1988


<!--QuoteBegin-Jet,


European countries' constitutions "worked," too, and yet after WW2 all European democracies, even those that continued to be democracies till WW2 such as France, had rewrites.
[/quote]

C'mon, you know that Americans have to do it their way, and some Euros thinking that they've done it better have never gotten us to change our minds.

France has had a twisted history. They overthrew the King, beheaded him and many nobles and their families, wrote a government document, and then put up a non-Frenchman as their military emporer. The first copy didn't work, to say the least.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The constitutions entire purpose is to set the limits of the government. That is all.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Okay, now that sheet of paper has both faith and purpose. ***Goes off to bang head on wall***

[Jet]

The Constitution is by the people for the people, or it was, and the Constitution trumps government, or at least it should

Nope; it was written by the elites and was meant to serve the local elites. Further, there's a very big difference between a document written by the people and the people themselves. The government, too, is supposedly of, by, and for the people.

So what makes you assume that I debate in ethos? Sorry, I prefer logos. And as yet, you have yet to make a case.

A case for what? That age doesn't imply good is a well-known pricniple of logical debate, and ad antiquitem (sp?) is a known logical fallacy, even if it's not as widely used as, say, ad hominem. If you're talking about my attack on the constitution, then I've given a few points; if you want I can give you my entire list of arguments.

France has had a twisted history. They overthrew the King, beheaded him and many nobles and their families, wrote a government document, and then put up a non-Frenchman as their military emporer. The first copy didn't work, to say the least.

Actually, I'm talking about replacing the constitution of the third republic with this of the fourth.

Sorry, I mangled the wording by interchanging Constitution as a "living document". Documents like the Magna Carta are much older but isn't law in British society. I can say that it is the oldest written national constitution in use.

In practice, writs such as the magna carta and habeas corpus are as integral to British law as the US Constitution is to American law.

The constitutions entire purpose is to set the limits of the government. That is all.

So? I wager that you won't accept the Iraqi constitution under Saddam as a constitution...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

***rolls eyes***
The "old does not equal good" is a tactic used against those that argue in ethos. And if you want to correctly spell logical fallicies all you have to do is follow the link in my sig. BTW: Since I have a link to logical fallicies you might just want to assume I know what they are.

Now that we have established that you do not know the forms of debate and you do not notice things like a link in someones sig, we can debate your 'points'.

Nope; it was written by the elites and was meant to serve the local elites. Further, there's a very big difference between a document written by the people and the people themselves. The government, too, is supposedly of, by, and for the people.

Considering the literacy rate of the time it would hardly have been possable to have been written by the common man. Besides, would you really want to read a document prepared by a common man? Hel, I would not want to read a document prepared by most of the students at my college.

[Jet]

Considering the literacy rate of the time it would hardly have been possable to have been written by the common man. Besides, would you really want to read a document prepared by a common man? Hel, I would not want to read a document prepared by most of the students at my college.

I completely agree with you in that respect, though the constitution was still way too elitistic even for its time (property qualifications for voting were unnecessary, for instance). I was attacking the point that the constitution was of and for the people, regardless of whether it should be.

And if you want to correctly spell logical fallicies all you have to do is follow the link in my sig.

Actually, there are enough fallacy resoruces online; they one I use is infidels.org's, in case you're wondering. The fact that you have a link in your sig doesn't immunize you from using such fallacies; hell, my logic professor used some fallacies (I don't remember which, though) while teaching about logical fallacies... Plus, given that you had said 4309483.5 times that the constitution's age made it a good thing, I assumed that you either didn't know you were makign that fallacy or knew and ignored it.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I have not said a single time that the constitutions age had any meaning. You may want to read the names on posts more often too.

My name is neither gregh or white rice...