do americans love their documents more?

[Gelgoog]

ive been noticing alot of us americans around here are often spouting off our love of the constitution and bill of rights,ect. and it seems that americans are more passionate about their "documents" then any other nation. not to mention steadfast refusal to let anyone change them, and prase for those who created them.

so how do you red, white and blues feel about your document, and how does everyone else see it?

[Farnan]

The Constitution is the most important document in the United States. I would die to protect as millions have before me and millions will after me.

"I, (my name), do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..."

[Gelgoog]

do other nations have founding documents that they feel nearly as passionate about? ive at least havent heard about them ( cept magna carta)

[Tiwaz]

do other nations have founding documents that they feel nearly as passionate about? ive at least havent heard about them ( cept magna carta)

Proud of? Yes. Every nation generally has some kind of base arrangement (codified or uncodified constitution or similar).

But generally they are seen as tools of society, not foundings of it like in USA. Thus there is far less passion towards them.

[Erik]

But generally they are seen as tools of society, not foundings of it like in USA. Thus there is far less passion towards them.

Yes, that's how I see my countries constitution: a tool, nothing more.
And with a 2/3 majority you can change every part of our constitution, or even abolish it completely, which I think is fine because if such a large majority agrees to something why not?

[Gelgoog]

Yes, that's how I see my countries constitution: a tool, nothing more.
And with a 2/3 majority you can change every part of our constitution, or even abolish it completely, which I think is fine because if such a large majority agrees to something why not?

yes, that would be true if politicians representative of their populous and did their jobs, however considering that all politicians ( or at least 99%) come from wealthy backgrounds and require huge sums of money running for office, which means there is alot of backscratching, i hardly consider the congress to represent the majority of the usa. it never has, and never will unless we have more congressional and campaign reforms.

[Erik]

yes, that would be true if politicians representative of their populous and did their jobs, however considering that all politicians ( or at least 99%) come from wealthy backgrounds and require huge sums of money running for office, which means there is alot of backscratching,

Not in my country.
We currently have 10 parties in parliament, and most of them are really quite decent.

And campaigns aren't that expensive here.
Starting a new party can be expensive, but you don't have to be a millionaire.
And once you passed the election treshold of 0.75% you get free TV time on state television ans some subsidies to fund your campaign.
The most important parts are the debates, and they don't cost any money to partake.

One of our most successful politicians used to work in a sausage factory for minimum wage before he started his own political party that is now the 3rd largest.
He's just a very good debater and all the politicians working for his party give up a large part of their pay to help fund the campaign.

BTW: why is it that most Americans think their political system as the best one in the world (far better than any European country has), yet they mistrust their own elected politicians and accuse them of corruption and not doing their job?

[Sidus Preclarum]

do other nations have founding documents that they feel nearly as passionate about? ive at least havent heard about them ( cept magna carta)

you might have heard of this:

[Osceola]

.. And domestic.


Almost always forgotten.

[Farnan]

Nope, never forgotten, just not yet invoked against the Federal government. We have protected the Constitution against other domestic enemies such as those who would try to defy Congress and not allow Black students in their school. Also, many other groups who wished to overthrow the government domestically in violation of the Constitution. If President Bush, or any other president, would attempt to take over the government we would remove him.

[RZZZA]

ive been noticing alot of us americans around here are often spouting off our love of the constitution and bill of rights,ect. and it seems that americans are more passionate about their "documents" then any other nation. not to mention steadfast refusal to let anyone change them, and prase for those who created them.

so how do you red, white and blues feel about your document, and how does everyone else see it?

What do you mean americans are steadfast against changing the consitution? Thats the weirdest thing to me because how many amendments to the constiution have there been already? 27 is it?

Thomas Jefferson said ""Let us provide in our Constitution for its revision every 20 years."

Every 20 years! The man wanted to have a constitutional convention every 20 years, because he realized that the founding fathers were not divine and for all their wisdom could not for the life of them forsee this world which we live in now. Shouldnt our constitution change to reflect our times?

[Gelgoog]

amendments are additions, im talking about x-ing out this part or that part when it doesnt fit our needs.

[LoZz]

What do you mean americans are steadfast against changing the consitution? Thats the weirdest thing to me because how many amendments to the constiution have there been already? 27 is it?

Thomas Jefferson said ""Let us provide in our Constitution for its revision every 20 years."

Every 20 years! The man wanted to have a constitutional convention every 20 years, because he realized that the founding fathers were not divine and for all their wisdom could not for the life of them forsee this world which we live in now. Shouldnt our constitution change to reflect our times?

couldnt agree more

[danzig]

Every 20 years! The man wanted to have a constitutional convention every 20 years, because he realized that the founding fathers were not divine and for all their wisdom could not for the life of them forsee this world which we live in now. Shouldnt our constitution change to reflect our times?

Hehe reminds me of Joe Pesci movie where he plays a bum and stumbles across the thesis of a student and holds it 'hostage', in it he goes the genius of the constitution is that it was written by people smart enough to know they werent smart enough to know everything. Crappy movie but such a really true statement. Anyway we probably are more passionate about our documents then most, gotta remember we place alot of stock here in the US in the *meaning* of symbols, from the flag, to the constitution etc. The problem is when politicians misuse that faith in the ideals those symbols represent to manipulate us and the fact far too many of us fall for it. In the end this type of behavior is going to imo destroy a unique trait of Americans compared to alot of other nations and we'll end up missing it. The trick is when one says you will die for your flag and your constitution is that when you say it you fully understand what it is you are placing your life on the line for...not just a piece of cloth or paper but what is actually represented by the flag and by the old piece of paper. Too many people just play lip service to it.

[MaximiIian]

As of yet, few parts of it have not fit our needs. The Federal Republic as proscribed in the US Constitution is a very balanced and pliable system of government, and our founding document gives both federal and provincial governments a good degree of legislative elasticity which can be adapted to most situations. If we need to change anything, it's done by a constitutional amendment, which is more than a simple addition. Amendments can mark out certain parts of the constitution, and have. As RZZZA said, there's been nearly 30 amendments, equating to numerous revisions of constitutional law.

[Cassy]

Well, have you considered that may be because that the British Constitution is not a document? Some people will tell you the British Constitution is an unwritten constitution, but in fact it is an uncodified constitution. This means that yes, some of it is literally unwritten laws (the Prime Minister, for example, you will find no law in Britain even concerning his existance) and some of it is laws, conventions and one thousand years of documentation and general complication that makes studying UK law a Herculean task compared to the US's tiny 2000 word piece of paper.

This is why the US Constitution is so good.

But there are other constitutions that their people are equally proud of. Iceland, for an example. Their constitution is pacifist, and the Icelandic are very proud of this and resist any militarism.

[Mig el Pig]

ive been noticing alot of us americans around here are often spouting off our love of the constitution and bill of rights,ect. and it seems that americans are more passionate about their "documents" then any other nation. not to mention steadfast refusal to let anyone change them, and prase for those who created them.

Euh didn't Bush abolish or change alot of the Constitution and the bill of rights with his Patriot act?

And speaking as a belgian, we don't really have anything nationalistic that were passionate about except beer and chocolate.

[Cassy]

No, he can't do that. In order to make any changes to the Constitution you must formally amend it. This is a long and difficult process, and has only happened.... 27? times in the past 200 years. He did try to amend it to ban gay marriage, but that would have been so grossly unconstitutional it was shot down.

What he can do is suspend habeus corpus for foreigners, torture and all sorts of horid things. The man has basically pissed all over the Constitution. If he stepped in it he wouldn't stop to wipe it off his shoe.

[Erich von Manstein]

I'm with Farnan. I'm not a soldier, but I too would give my life to protect the Constitution. The modern Progressive movement has portrayed it as an ancient document that holds no ground when it interferes with their ideals - witness the strong presence of an activist judiciary in this country. I always chuckle a little whenever I hear one of those Progressives accuse Bush of destroying the Constitution. They've been attempting to subvert portions of it for over a decade (some would argue since FDR) by encouraging judges to "loosely" translate it. At least Bush has been willing to oppose portions of it publicly. I don't like the man, but I will give him credit where it is due.

Back to the point, however, there is a reason so many of us profess such a strong passion for the Constitution. It maintains liberty by keeping the government in check. Without it we would likely be witnessing the trend seen in Europe of suppressing entire ideas and speech that are considered "disagreeable" by contemporary standards. It prevents (in theory) the government from robbing its citizens (although the Leftists on the Supreme Court are changing this through the use of emminent domain). It upholds the American ideal that freedom should be the rule, not the exception. That is why so many of us idealize it. Not, it is not perfect. It does impede the enactment of sweeping reforms that don't have the support of a supermajority of the people or their representatives. Of course, this also prevents tyranny in all of its forms, both autocratic and popular.

The point is that the Constitution embodies liberty for all who would adhere to it, even if this comes at the cost of "emotions" and "self-dignity." It is what sets the US apart from the rest of Western civilization. You won't find many people willing to risk their lives to ensure the steady outflow of government handouts, universal health care, or the silencing of unpopular voices. You will find that many will do anything to protect their liberty, however - hence the passion.

He did try to amend it to ban gay marriage, but that would have been so grossly unconstitutional it was shot down.

Er, an amendment isn't unconstitutional if it is enacted. That's the whole point to a constitutional amendment.

Euh didn't Bush abolish or change alot of the Constitution and the bill of rights with his Patriot act?

Pure propaganda, and I say that as a Bush opponent. His Patriot Act really didn't change much in the sense that it doesn't impact the vast, vast, VAST majority of Americans. Plus, it has been upheld by most courts, meaning that they view it as constitutional.

[Cassy]

Er, an amendment isn't unconstitutional if it is enacted. That's the whole point to a constitutional amendment.

Although I see your point it's not quite correct because you would have to also amend every single part about discrimination and freedom and the government imposing rules on the states outside their original powers... insane.

And yes, the Constitution is an incredibly flawed document. It is two hundred years old and people abuse it. Depends on what part of the political spectrum you are but at the moment that's either 'activist judges' or the Bush administration. But still, it's an amazing human achievement that has worked very well and is the model for the vast majority of constitutions in the world.