Would saving the US Constitution be worth your life? (Hypo.)

[CaptJodan]

I have to disagree with the point that the majority actually like now (certainly now) or liked at the second election the way Bush was running things. There was no doubt a large force of die hards out there. That's never going to change. And I would conceed that we're talking a large portion of that vote were people who honestly voted for Bush.

But let's remember how close the election actually was for both races. Now, during the election I came across countless people who had the opinion that they didn't really want Bush in for a second term, but they just couldn't elect Kerry in after seeing him in action (this included my parents). They eventually went with "the devil you know" as I heard it.

Does that make them stupid? Well, maybe. But Kerry's campaign certainly wasn't the best run campaign, and even the left makes fun of itself for not being able to grow a spine these days. Does it make them evil? Hell no. It was a terrible election with terrible choices.

Does that make it ethically right to say that those who did that deserve what the OP suggests? Does it justify the mess that will be left for the other nearly half of the country who voted the other way and who were intelligent? I personally don't think so.

[NecronLord]

Just to butt in...

longest-lasting government on the planet

What? No American Administration has that title, nor does the American State itself have the greatest continuity. Not by a long way. Seriously, what's the justification for this claim?

[Anguirus]

Like I said some time ago (and I don't want this thread taken up by an argument, so if you disagree with me greatly, please start another thread) my history teacher pointed this out to me. He said that the U.S. is the longest continuous national government still in existence, counting from the ratification of the Constitution on. The Constitution itself has been modified, but the document's status as the basis for our government has not changed, despite civil war and everything else.

In all honesty, I should have left it out of the OP, or at least made it a clearer statement. It sort of depends on how you define things. For instance, the Parliament in England has lasted longer, though its status has changed and they govern by precedent rather than by a single document. Other disproving examples...well, I'm not aware of them, so if you could point a few out I'd be thankful.

One way or another, it has lasted for a damn long time, so that's pretty cool in my book.

[The Guid]

The US does not even approach "a damn long time" in terms of history. The nature of the US government has changed as have others to incorporate previously subjugated people. It does "depend on how you define things" but I really can't see a definition that doesn't just squeeze out everything you don't like.

As for the OP, I can't help but wonder how this situation is any different to where others have laid down their lives for liberty? Is my life more valuable than Martin Luther King's? Is it more valuable than soldiers from the Second World War? etc. Fuck no. Then of course I would sacrifice myself for the cause of freedom.

[NecronLord]

Like I said some time ago (and I don't want this thread taken up by an argument, so if you disagree with me greatly, please start another thread) my history teacher pointed this out to me. He said that the U.S. is the longest continuous national government still in existence, counting from the ratification of the Constitution on. The Constitution itself has been modified, but the document's status as the basis for our government has not changed, despite civil war and everything else.

That's an entirely different ball game, given that it means one doesn't have to compete with the likes of Persia, Tsarist Russia, Babylon, Egypt, etc, and I would question whether it's that, too. The British Government usually claims to have, with good cause, continuity going back to the time of Charles II. In the terms of most countries, the United States of America is very young.

You can jiggery-pokery it around to claim that as long as the constitution's there, the US is a continuous government, but really, by that standard, one can re-define the criteria to anything you like, such as 'name' - in which case, Japan and China have been around for a very long time.

And, by the way, the Papal State's probably got the best claim of long term governmental continuity of any existing government. They've been doing the same damn thing for over a millennium.

[Imperial Overlord]

To the best of my knowledge, the All Thing in Iceland is the oldest contigious democracy.

[Anguirus]

^ Oh, forgot about them. Also, good points raised by Necron and Guid. Consider the point conceded.

[Zero]

With voter turnout as low as it is in the US, I don't see how anyone could claim that the votes necessarily indicate what the american public wants. You could assume that the portion that votes represents the average, but this is a stupid assumption, considering that it's a well-known fact that not all demographic groups vote in equal proportions. The poor, minorities, and young people all tend to vote less, and all of these groups have a greater tendency to be more liberal. Assuming that the winning vote necessarily was favored by the majority of the country is stupid, considering only 55.3% of all possible voters vote in the US.

Only about half of all eligible voters vote, and minors aren't counted in that grouping. Since 100% of those people would suffer under the hypothetical dystopia, I think it's damned stupid to say that you'd run away like a bitch because you think that all these people deserve it. The anti-American bullshit pisses me off. Allowing the country to become a theocracy because you don't agree with decisions made by voters is damned stupid, and damned immoral.

[Teleros]

The British Government usually claims to have, with good cause, continuity going back to the time of Charles II. In the terms of most countries, the United States of America is very young.

Actually seeing as how we've never actually had a new constitution ever (handy thing with ours is that you just change it whenever it needs changing - it's far more flexible than any other constitution I can think of), you can go all the way back to the Magna Carta .

Re the OP: I may be British, but hey I'd do it for the USA anyway: from my point of view it's a no-brainer.

[Beowulf]

The British Government usually claims to have, with good cause, continuity going back to the time of Charles II. In the terms of most countries, the United States of America is very young.

Actually seeing as how we've never actually had a new constitution ever (handy thing with ours is that you just change it whenever it needs changing - it's far more flexible than any other constitution I can think of), you can go all the way back to the Magna Carta .

Re the OP: I may be British, but hey I'd do it for the USA anyway: from my point of view it's a no-brainer.

On the other hand, the English did have a rather severe change in government between the Magna Carta. I believe it involved the execution of Charles I in the mid 1600's, and a guy named Cromwell.

[Teleros]

Ah but it was still the same constitution . Yes it's a technical legalese argument but hey it's another reason to boast about being British so I'm not complaining .

[Plekhanov]

The British Government usually claims to have, with good cause, continuity going back to the time of Charles II. In the terms of most countries, the United States of America is very young.

Actually seeing as how we've never actually had a new constitution ever (handy thing with ours is that you just change it whenever it needs changing - it's far more flexible than any other constitution I can think of), you can go all the way back to the Magna Carta .

Re the OP: I may be British, but hey I'd do it for the USA anyway: from my point of view it's a no-brainer.

On the other hand, the English did have a rather severe change in government between the Magna Carta. I believe it involved the execution of Charles I in the mid 1600's, and a guy named Cromwell.

That’s as maybe but the monarchy was still restored well over a hundred years before the US constitution was ratified.

But as Teleros pointed out it takes a lot more than a civil war and the killing of a monarch (which is hardly unusual anyway, it was the fact that he didn’t declare himself king immediately afterwards which sets Cromwell above other regicides) to overturn the UK’s infinitely flexible, unwritten constitution.

[Anguirus]

Well, I finally voted "yes." What a lot of you guys have said is very true...my life's not worth that amount of suffering. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had dependents to protect...or maybe I wouldn't.

Thanks to everyone who replied...this is a really cool discussion.