Does Constitution still serve us?

[Locutus]

The Constitution's final boss is too hard so we should reset it to easy level where we can change it every other week to make it work says apparent teenaged article writer


via Fark:

Framers locked the nation into a rigid set of precepts, and it's time to rethink that



We celebrate Independence Day, which commemorates not the date on which American independence was actually declared (July 2), but, instead, the date the document we know as the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed. It is telling that this is America's most basic national holiday, far more, for example, than is Constitution Day, Sept. 17, the anniversary of the formal proposal (and signatures) of the delegates who met in Philadelphia 11 years after the Declaration was adopted.

Similarly, it is telling that Abraham Lincoln began the 1863 Gettysburg Address - the greatest speech in American history - with the reference to "four score and seven years ago." That, of course, dated the beginning of the "new nation" that entered the world as 1776. 1787 might have established a new government, but Lincoln is suggesting that the Constitution is distinctly secondary to the Declaration in terms of constituting American national identity.

Indeed, Lincoln venerated the Declaration in a way that he did not the Constitution, even though he took an oath to "support, protect and defend" the document. Legal historians argue to this day about the extent to which Lincoln was fully faithful to his oath, but, at one level, it really does not matter. No one believes that the Lincoln Memorial serves as the central temple of American civil religion because of his lawyerly devotion to the Constitution.


lots more


Does Constitution still serve us?

 

[Highball]

Happy Independence Day in return. In an opinion rendered by many the Constitution still serves us well but there are many who want to do their own thing and want it changed to make that possible. My answer? IMMIGRATE now to a place like Mexico or Syria or any North African country and you may be happier there. Good luck to those who do.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Your Constitution would be of poor service were it not for the ability of your Courts to find ways to read it that can reflect modernity and changing needs and realities

That is the true genius of America, not the Constitution itsel which would have been a straightjacket if strict constructionists had their way.

Oddly, Canada has had the opposite experience. A Constitution that was designed to be flexible and, drawing on the American intent, not crippling future governments from reacting to changing times and circumstances.

As a decision (by the Privy Council) that still governs wrote: "On;y words matter, intent and history are not relevant." Or words to that effect.

 

[WJW]

I don't find it helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views. (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.) I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.

Times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

 

[The Old Medic]

The writers of the Constitution, AND the legislatures that eventually approved it, very deliberately made the Constitution difficult to amend. They did this for a very real reason, one that still applies today.

The Constitution is not designed to bend to the whims of the day. It is designed to prevent an all powerful central government, and to LIMIT GOVERNMENT at all levels.

The framers of the Constitution had experience with an all powerful central government, and they did not trust any such system. They also had studied history, and knew that the common people would ALWAYS vote to enlarge their benefits, to get government to pay for their necessities, and believe in a "magic" solution to their problems.

They knew that government has a strong tendency to assume ever greater powers over the people. That government almost always ends up limiting the rights of the people "for the greater good", and destroying opportunity in the process.

The bigger, and the more powerful that the government becomes, the less the chances of the individual to break out and make a true success of themselves.

There is not now, and there never has been, any form of "Democracy" in the United States of America. Any person that calls this society a "Democracy" is ignorant of how our government works. We have an elected representative form of government, with strict limitations on the power of any part of it.

We also have the oldest written Constitution in the world, and one that has, and still does, serve this country very well.

God help any country that every becomes a real "Democracy". It will be utter chaos, and absolutely ungovernable.

 

[gerryh]

We also have the oldest written Constitution in the world, and one that has, and still does, serve this country very well.

Wrong, but I'll let Bear handle this one.

 

[Niflmir]

Wrong, but I'll let Bear handle this one.

I've got this one (assuming he means oldest still in effect):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

I've even been there. It is a quite charming castle.

 

[gerryh]

I've got this one (assuming he means oldest still in effect):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

I've even been there. It is a quite charming castle.

There's another that might even be older.

 

[WLDB]

God help any country that every becomes a real "Democracy". It will be utter chaos, and absolutely ungovernable.

I'd agree with that. Thats one issue I have with referendums on any issue. You either have representative government or direct democracy, I dont like the idea of both. They'd constantly be overturning each other.

The OP raised an interesting point in bringing up Lincoln's possible indifference to the constitution. I had never really thought of it that way but it'd make sense. He was one of the first to really ignore it when convenient, but not the last. There are plenty of consitutions out there that are good but they arent of much use if the leaders ignore them. Mexico has had several good ones which its leaders consistently ignored.

 

[damngrumpy]

The American Constitution did make it difficult to change but for a special reason
they were very conservative and they did not want anything to upset their status
quo. Remember when this was written the world was a conservative and religious
place. Slavery was also much in vogue.
I am not say the framers were all devout Christians in fact they made every attempt
to separate church and state. The reason is, that it wasn't too much after the
witches and church tyranny. In fact many came to America to get away from the
insanity.

 

[WJW]

The United States is not a true democracy. See U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum (e.g. Proposition 8 ballot initiative in California for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the State constitution). Likewise, under the Constitution, citizens do not vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). The very provisions of the Constitution belies the claim that they were intended to be immutable. The historical fact of the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and civil rights attest that the Constitution is very much a "living document." The Constitution has been amended to reflect changing societal values, which speaks to its enduring viability as the framework of our government and the font of our rights and liberty established by law.

 

[CDNBear]

We also have the oldest written Constitution in the world, and one that has, and still does, serve this country very well.

The US Constitution, isn't even the oldest Constitution in North America. That would be the 5 Nations Constitution, the Grandfather of the US Constitution.

It was written and translated into English in the early 1700's. Long before the US Constitution, was conceived, written and ratified.

I'm not surprised I had to correct your faulty historical knowledge, involving First Nations and the US, yet again.

Wrong, but I'll let Bear handle this one.

Thank you.

I've got this one (assuming he means oldest still in effect):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

That's debatable. In 1600 they had a list of statutes. Their declaration of civil rights didn't get ratified until the 1970's.

 

[WJW]

"The only thing to be learnt from history is that nobody learns from history."
- William Golding, Close Quarters (1987)

It would seem that that there are people with private agendas that are intent on rewriting history to have the world ordered to their own liking.

 

[taxslave]

"The only thing to be learnt from history is that nobody learns from history."
- William Golding, Close Quarters (1987)

It would seem that that there are people with private agendas that are intent on rewriting history to have the world ordered to their own liking.

That has been reality since the beginning of history.

 

[WJW]

"History – An account mostly false, of events unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary (1911)

History is the story of man. It’s also a pack of lies.

 

[CDNBear]

Waxing philosophic doesn't chance recorded history.

 

[WJW]

Yes, you're right: waxing philosophic doesn't change recorded history. Still, I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. (The "Tea Party" activists come to mind.) Our so-called founding fathers, when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the egalitarian we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820). The "times that try men’s souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.

 

[CDNBear]

Well put!

There is spin on all perception.

That's why I prefer the facts, so I can make my own opinion.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Your Constitution would be of poor service were it not for the ability of your Courts to find ways to read it that can reflect modernity and changing needs and realities

That is the true genius of America, not the Constitution itsel which would have been a straightjacket if strict constructionists had their way.

Oddly, Canada has had the opposite experience. A Constitution that was designed to be flexible and, drawing on the American intent, not crippling future governments from reacting to changing times and circumstances.

As a decision (by the Privy Council) that still governs wrote: "On;y words matter, intent and history are not relevant." Or words to that effect.

You can blame Brian Mulroney for the lack of flexibilty. The amendment formula is pretty simple; the federal government proposes an amendment and seven provinces with over 50% of the total population ratify it. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way to Meech Lake that got twisted into 10 provinces having to agree. Of course, a government with guts could always stick with the official amending formula.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

You can blame Brian Mulroney for the lack of flexibilty. The amendment formula is pretty simple; the federal government proposes an amendment and seven provinces with over 50% of the total population ratify it. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way to Meech Lake that got twisted into 10 provinces having to agree. Of course, a government with guts could always stick with the official amending formula.

It actually goes back much further. A Constitution that was supposed to be like the British Constitution with an equally centralised society has become the doctrine governing the most decentralised country on Earth. It goes back to around 1890 when the Lords of the Privy Council began to give a strict constructionist interpretation. I think it was the Manitoba boundary dispute with Ontario tough I may be misremembering the exact case.

I think I cited the decision that became the prcedent and guiding principle. where the chief jusice said that "only words matter."