tvashtarkatena Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 US Constitution no longer the world's model Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 That is because the people we elect and swear to obey it completely ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 no it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 no it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 of course it is - right down there at the bottom "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Interesting article. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 no it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 i'm horrified that so many countries have drifted away from hammurabi's code too who cares if other nations like our set of rules? we're a pretty atypical country anyhow, given our relatively young age and unique history and evolution - how many nations have adopted our model and had it blow up on them? african states modeling their executive on ours sure have fucked up good n' ugly, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Most countries are on Revolution 6.0, and you're still running 2.17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldfinger Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Not out of date, unless you prefer kickin' it in Homs homes. More of a challenge to uphold it as it governs day to day life. Or even understanding it for some folks. We're Americans...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 no it is not. Come on kids, did any of you actually read the article? I know no one likes to here someone badmouthin 'merica but its not so much of a yes or no question as a discussion piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 no it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Thanks for the nudge to read it, interesting indeed. Is having the most difficult to amend constitution a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know that being susceptible to any passing whimsey is a good thing for a constitution, having rights be determined by a simple majority is not desirable in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Guatemala and Mexico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Polite societies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Our constitution lacks some basic protections befitting a modern, civilized nation - privacy and healthcare being a couple that stand out. We could also use a stronger affirmation of habeas corpus, given its recent erosion. Women are probably at the greatest risk of losing the most, given our 40 year long cold war regarding choice. There should be constitutional protection there. Campaign finance reform should also be addressed. Edited February 7, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougd Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yes, very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. OW hits on an important point IMO. Amending (updating) our constitution is pretty tough... Article V "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Would improvement lie somewhere between simple majority, and the above requirement, considering the need for relevance of this document in todays society? I think so. Just where is the right balance of difficulty and necessity of change? Whom decides this and how? Do we leave it to todays so called "leaders"? I think not. And to Pat's point, albeit brief, but no less important. Given the interpretation by many in this country that the second amendment's provision that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means that common citizens have the right to possess (and from time to time use them to mow down large quantities of their fellow citizens), modern military style assault weapons when we have a perfectly good "militia" we now refer to as the US Military speaks to the anachronistic nature of this document. I believe that were the founders to know of how it is today it would not be so. Yes, in my opinion, the US Constitution is outdated and needs changing. Given today's top to bottom polarized society, amending the Constitution isn't going to happen again in my lifetime. Further, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court the final word on interpretation of the Constitution, I have little faith that any positive change will be forthcoming. So, here we sit... d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 the declaration of the rights of man is a pretty bitch'n document - hasn't kept the francos from acting like fuckos though pretty certain jefferson n' washington woulda crapped in their culottes if they knew people in the future would think they thought poor black guys n' illiterate crackers should be able to have a frigate's worth of firepower in their foyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 are we in that much love w/ our system? the do-nothing periods when one party doesn't control both the legislature and the executive? election years when fuck-all's going to happen? parliamentary systems w/ elections as needed and combined legislative and executive powers seem an improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Of course, it is dated. It became dated within a generation just because it didn't acknowledge that freedom is fleeting without some modicum of equality as is shown today with freedom of speech and corporate media control, or one man, one vote and the flood of corporate money in politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Does it really matter if it's dated if it's not adhered to anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Show me the $$$! All told, the group, Restore Our Future, raised about $18 million from just 200 donors in the second half of 2011. Millions of dollars came from financial industry executives, including Mr. Romney’s former colleagues at Bain Capital, who contributed a total of $750,000; senior executives at Goldman Sachs, who contributed $385,000; and some of the most prominent and politically active Republicans in the hedge fund world, three of whom gave $1 million each: Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies; Paul Singer of Elliott Management, and Julian Robertson of Tiger Management. Harlan Crow, the Texas construction magnate, gave $300,000 personally and through his company. William Koch, whose brothers Charles and David are among the country’s most prominent backers of conservative causes, gave $1 million personally or through Oxbow Carbon, the energy company he founded. Members of the Walton family, founders of the Walmart chain, gave over $200,000, while Bob Perry — a wealthy home builder who has long been the top patron of Mr. Romney’s erstwhile rival, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas — chipped in $500,000 in early Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 There are no surprises here. A few decades ago, countries had few examples to copy and work from, so they predominantly used our constitution as a basis for theirs. As countries created their own version, iterated on it, and had more and more other templates to look at, they moved away from the "original". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldfinger Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Well, the Articles of Confederation didn't fare too well, maybe that is the ideal GOP model for regulating the economy. So I guess you can't hold it against folks if the experiment needs a tune up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstach Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: “Canadian law,” he wrote, “serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world.” The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart. Go Canada! #1 in hockey and #1 in rights and freedoms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.