Why are people obsessed with the Constitution?

[Guardsman Bass]

It seems like between the Republicans and Democrats, there is a large body of people who want to return to the original constitution. But one thing; isn't the constitution possibly subject to change? As I can remember, it was never "set in stone." It seems more like these people are rejecting the complex political world and want to a simple time that never existed.

[Joe]

Yes, it's subject to change, through amendmant. Otherwise, it does not change. People just interpret it differently.

[Joe]

And to answer your question; given that the Constitution is the document by which the United States Government theoretically operates, the interest in adhering to it is justified, even when it's not genuine (which is usually the case; politicians piss on the principles of the Constitution on a daily basis).

[Stuart Mackey]

It seems like between the Republicans and Democrats, there is a large body of people who want to return to the original constitution. But one thing; isn't the constitution possibly subject to change? As I can remember, it was never "set in stone." It seems more like these people are rejecting the complex political world and want to a simple time that never existed.

Well as I am a Kiwi, I can honestly say that I am glad we have a unwritten constitution, or at least a constitution that is sperad of so many statute books it isnt funny. As such our constitution evoles along with the times and we dont have some of the issues that the Americans do.

[Darth Wong]

The appeal to constitutional authority is what you get when you take a humanist constitution and meld it with an authoritarian mindset (primarily derived from a religion which bases its morality upon "commandments").

The American "Founding Fathers" created the constitution, designed it, and tweaked it in order to produce what they felt would be a just and open society. Unfortunately, in recent times many Americans seem to have mistaken the means for the end.

As a thought experiment, suppose it could be shown that some particular constitutional provision actually detracted from a just and open society. Since the Founding Fathers thought of the constitution as a means to an end, they would counsel an amendment. But I would be curious how many others would feel that way, since so many Americans "win" arguments by simply citing the constitution as if it is perfect and unquestionable.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

There was Prohibition, but it was passed in the 1910's as an attempt to "restore morals" to the country. When an amendment was passed in the 30's to repeal it, people didn't mind, since the 18th amendment was an obvious failure, and the Constitution allows changes if somehting in it isn't working.

[Master of Ossus]

Out of curiosity (not disagreement with the law), why is it that banning the consumption of alcohol required a constitutional ammendment, when prohibiting the consumption of drugs like marijuana and cocaine simply requires a Federal law?

[Mr Bean]

Because Ossus the ordinary citizin can't charge a Constiutional Admendment in court as being unlawful while he/she can do so with any law

The idea was to make it much harder to over-turn

[Master of Ossus]

Because Ossus the ordinary citizin can't charge a Constiutional Admendment in court as being unlawful while he/she can do so with any law

The idea was to make it much harder to over-turn

I see. I've always wondered about that. Thanks, Bean.

[Steve]

The appeal to constitutional authority is what you get when you take a humanist constitution and meld it with an authoritarian mindset (primarily derived from a religion which bases its morality upon "commandments").

The American "Founding Fathers" created the constitution, designed it, and tweaked it in order to produce what they felt would be a just and open society. Unfortunately, in recent times many Americans seem to have mistaken the means for the end.

As a thought experiment, suppose it could be shown that some particular constitutional provision actually detracted from a just and open society. Since the Founding Fathers thought of the constitution as a means to an end, they would counsel an amendment. But I would be curious how many others would feel that way, since so many Americans "win" arguments by simply citing the constitution as if it is perfect and unquestionable.

I don't consider it unquestionable, but in a legal debate citing it is pretty unquestionable simply because, in order to be effective, it must be followed. To bypass the Constitution directly and openly would be to strike at the very center of American law and government.

So when some fucks get the idea that voting isn't a right and that we should institute a Starship Troopers-style system of "earning" suffrage by service to the State, er, I mean, "society", I pull out the 14th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments and beat them repeatedly in the head with them.

Now, from a logic standpoint, it can be wrong; if so, we push for an amendment. Which is as hard as hell to get passed, but can be done. This is because the Fathers realized that the Constitution must be flexible as well as stable. That's the key, the flexibility of the system, it can be changed.

Speaking of voting for a moment, I wish we could institute the Kentucky State Constitution's rule for voting, namely, one of it's prohibitions: Idiots aren't allowed to vote (this is true! It lists "Idiots and insane persons" as the third group not permitted to vote).

[beyond hope]

I have to disagree with the statement about Republicans and Democrats placing importance on the Constitution: they SAY they do, but their actions speak differently. Judging from recent legislation and hearings, I think it would be safe to say that there are large sections of the bill of rights that both parties find to be a nuisance to them now. Freedom of speech, for example: whether it's the "fundamentalist moralism" of the right or the "political correctness" of the left, there've been a fair number of recent bills attempting to erode this protection. The right to bear arms is of course a perennial source of annoyance to the left, while the seperation of church and state is as much of a bugbear for the right. There's also the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, which has taken some serious abuse with the "War on Drugs" and looks to be in for more under the "War on Terrorism." In fact, it makes me wonder... can anyone think of a section of the bill of rights that hasn't come under some kind of attack recently?

[Enlightenment]

The American "Founding Fathers" created the constitution, designed it, and tweaked it in order to produce what they felt would be a just and open society.

Not exactly. Consitutions are created just like any other piece of legislation: they are intended to serve the interests of their creators above all else. The US consitution was designed to protect the personal and business interests of he founding fathers and remove from the public agenda any policy initiatives which could infringe on their ability to make money (e.g. abolition of private property). The key driving factor behind the creation of the United States was not to create a just and open society but rather to create an olgiarchy controlled for and by the wealthy. This legacy is still visible today in that US policy is effectively controlled by whichever sectional interest can offer the most donations to the governing party.

I strongly recommend that anyone interested in a critical examination of the United States polity borrow/buy a copy of The Irony of Democracy by Dye and Ziegler. I suspect it will be rather of an eye opener.

[Joe]

Not exactly. Consitutions are created just like any other piece of legislation: they are intended to serve the interests of their creators above all else. The US consitution was designed to protect the personal and business interests of he founding fathers and remove from the public agenda any policy initiatives which could infringe on their ability to make money (e.g. abolition of private property). The key driving factor behind the creation of the United States was not to create a just and open society but rather to create an olgiarchy controlled for and by the wealthy. This legacy is still visible today in that US policy is effectively controlled by whichever sectional interest can offer the most donations to the governing party.

There was no one advocating the abolition of private property during the time of the American Revolution, or at least no one that was taken seriously. Why would preventing the abolition of private property be a concern of the Founders when no such threat existed?

[Enlightenment]

There was no one advocating the abolition of private property during the time of the American Revolution, or at least no one that was taken seriously. Why would preventing the abolition of private property be a concern of the Founders when no such threat existed?

On the contrary. Shay's Rebellion was taken very seriously.

Shay's Rebellion was put down by a smaller mercenary army, paid for by well-to-do citizens who feared a wholesale attack on property rights.

The states' growing radicalism intimidated the propertied classes, who began to advocate a strong central goverment to "insure domestic tranquility" guarantee "a republican form of government" and protect property "against domestic violence." The American Revolution had distrubed the masses' tradition defering to those in authority. Extremists like Thomas Paine, who reasoned that it was right and proper to revolt against England because of political tyranny, might also call for revolt against creditors because of economic tryranny. If debts owed to British merchants could be legistlated out of existance, why not also the debts owed to American merchants? Acts of violence, boycotts, tea parties, and attacks on tax collectors frightend all propertied people in America.

[Joe]

There was no one advocating the abolition of private property during the time of the American Revolution, or at least no one that was taken seriously. Why would preventing the abolition of private property be a concern of the Founders when no such threat existed?

On the contrary. Shay's Rebellion was taken very seriously.

Shay's Rebellion was put down by a smaller mercenary army, paid for by well-to-do citizens who feared a wholesale attack on property rights.

The states' growing radicalism intimidated the propertied classes, who began to advocate a strong central goverment to "insure domestic tranquility" guarantee "a republican form of government" and protect property "against domestic violence." The American Revolution had distrubed the masses' tradition defering to those in authority. Extremists like Thomas Paine, who reasoned that it was right and proper to revolt against England because of political tyranny, might also call for revolt against creditors because of economic tryranny. If debts owed to British merchants could be legistlated out of existance, why not also the debts owed to American merchants? Acts of violence, boycotts, tea parties, and attacks on tax collectors frightend all propertied people in America.

Shays' Rebellion was carried out by farmers, all property owners. It was never a wholesale assault on property rights, nor would it have become one had it continued. Shays' Rebellion dealt with mostly government tyranny, not economic tyranny. It was taken seriously because, to many, it was a close brush with anarchy and demonstrated the need for a stronger government. In any case, the federal government established by the Constitution has never been in the business of protecting property rights; this task has historically been left to the states.

[Alferd Packer]

This is why I love historiography: you can argue virtually any point as long as you can keep pouring out examples to back it up. It usually helps if you debase the opposing view with anything short of an ad hominem attack (not that it has ever stopped any good historian ).

Since US history is not my forte, I'll shut up now.

[Nick]

This is why I love historiography: you can argue virtually any point as long as you can keep pouring out examples to back it up. It usually helps if you debase the opposing view with anything short of an ad hominem attack (not that it has ever stopped any good historian ).

Since US history is not my forte, I'll shut up now.

More to the point - it's damn hard to figure out the motives of someone who is alive and talking to you (or for that matter, even someone who is you). And certain historians think they can figure out the exact motivations of historical figures?

Here's a hint: their motivations will be very human. That is, they will be complex. They will be different for each of the founding fathers. They will range from things the founding fathers were passionate about, to things they will consider merely nice bonuses. Their opinions of what is most important might even have changed from day to day.

And, when you get right down to it, what does it really matter? Guessing about people's motivations can be an entertaining diversion, but, when all is said and done, what actually matters is what they did and the consequences of their actions.

[RedImperator]

Ah, but you see, if you can convince people that you've got some historical figure's motives all figured out--the Founding Fathers', in this case--you can open the way to attacking what they accomplished. It's a stealth ad hominem attack. "The Founding Fathers were trying to protect their interests, not the rights of the people, so we can throw out the Constitution as an instrument of oppression and create a socialist utopia."

P.S. You can replace "rights of the people" with "the Will of God", replace "oppression" with "Satan", and replace "socialist" with "Christian" and you've found the extreme right counterpart to that argument.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Some people like the constitution because they think it lets them do whatever they damn well please (How many times have you heard someone say "it's a free country" when they do something nobody likes?)

Over American history, there have been many regualtion that violated it, such as the Sedition act back during the Adams administration, wasn't anm attack on the Constitution, it was more of an attempt to keep Federalists in the White House.

[Nick]

Ah, but you see, if you can convince people that you've got some historical figure's motives all figured out--the Founding Fathers', in this case--you can open the way to attacking what they accomplished.

Such a common tactic, it actually has its own name: "appeal to motive".

When you try to dismiss someone's argument, not by countering the argument, but by questioning their motives.

[Tsyroc]

Ah, but you see, if you can convince people that you've got some historical figure's motives all figured out--the Founding Fathers', in this case--you can open the way to attacking what they accomplished.

Such a common tactic, it actually has its own name: "appeal to motive".

When you try to dismiss someone's argument, not by countering the argument, but by questioning their motives.

I hate that. They might make perfect logical sense but if they have an alterior or complex motive...oop they lose.

I think it's the same thing with people appearing to be hypocritical. It's like right now the only way to get elected to office in the U.S. and stay there is to accept donations. If you try to change this system because it allows at least the perception that politicians are being bought without first dropping out of the system people will try to bring up the hypocrit angle and totally dismiss the argument. It doesn't matter that the argument or idea is right because the person behind it is a hypocrit.

I'm all for people backing up their statments with actions but sometimes in order to get the right things done appearing to be a hypocrit can be necessary. In otherwords you don't always want to fall on your sword just to prove a point because you'll just dead and likely so will the cause.