Constitution Worship

[Lord MJ]

Where does the American obsession with "The Constitution" come from? It is viewed as basically sacred and people have the attitude that the constitution is more important than the purpose it was created to serve. To the point they are willing to accept large scale suffering that's in line with the constitution and would fight tooth and nail against things that eliminate suffering that are contrary to the constitution.

Now other Democratic nations have constitutions. Some may be superior to the US constitution (I've never read the Constitution of another country so I can not state this as fact). Some Democratic nations even completely replace their constitutions when deemed necessary.

For those not from the US, do people in your countries worship your constitution the way that is apparently done here in the US?

It seems that people become irrational when it comes to the Constitution around these parts.

[Starglider]

Attempts to introduce an EU constitution failed pretty miserably, for no single reason; there were a vast number of different objections to it from across the political spectrum. It didn't help that it was essentially a French creation and a last gasp of France trying to dominate the EU, though that did make for some wonderful irony when France rejected it and stopped the process in its tracks. Since then Eurocrats have been continuing to try and get it adopted piecemeal, without public approval, but this just creates regular laws not a constitution.

[Samuel]

Well, randomly looking one up I got the French constitution. It is their 5th+ so I doubt they worship it as unalterable.
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/fr00000_.html

Don't worry- it is in English.

[Alyeska]

It has some good ideas and it has some bad ideas. I think part of the Constitution Worship comes from the main problem of Hero Worship of the Founding Fathers. They can do no wrong, ergo the Constitution itself is perfect. Throw in good old Patriotism and some Nationalism (lets add Jingoism while we are at it) and there you go.

[Darth Wong]

Americans want to believe that they are The Greatest Nation God Ever Created, so they naturally look to their moment of creation as a sacred moment. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers serve as convenient icons for this worship.

In a lot of other countries, they do not view the birth of the country and the creation of a constitution as a unified event. In Canada for example, we were around for a long time before somebody finally wrote up a constitution. There's no sense that the ratification of our Constitution was some kind of sacred moment for the country.

[Lord Revan]

to add to the fact finnish consititution is no where as important as the US (hell I don't even know when the first one was made around 1918 I'd think), but what we consider important is the independence day (6th of december that is, not 4th of july), even it doesn't come close to the near divine status the US constitution is to them (granted having a hostile nation that has more people in a single city then you have in total has kept the finnish national ego down)

[Isolder74]

Well the Constitution was set up as the supreme law of the land so as far as lawmaking goes it is very important in American legal affairs. While it can be amended the process is long and very convoluted.

In American Law no law can be passed that changes something that the Constitution does. The Supreme Court is the keeper of the torch, so to speak, and they are the final word in what the central law of the land is and hence why court cases there are usually so important.

[Johonebesus]

Didn't Edi once mention some "First Principles" that take precedence over the official constitution of his country? The U.S. doesn't have that. We burned our constitutional tradition in 1776, and had to start over from scratch. Amending the Constitution is hard not just out of reverence for the document, but because it is the only document that enumerates the citizens' rights and the states' limitations. We don't have some other set of laws that protect rights or limit the government, so amending the Constitution is tampering with the core of our laws. Certainly there is plenty of room for improvement, but there have been reforms when they seemed necessary. In most cases amendments fail not simply because people don't want to alter the Constitution, but because the proposed amendments aren't popular enough warrant being given prime status in our law. Look at the disaster of Prohibition. People don't want to make that mistake again. The only provision that really stands out as destructive to me is the Electoral College, and that is protected not out of reverence but fears that direct popular elections would lead to domination by a few highly populated areas (which somehow would be so very different than having a few key swing states decide the fate of the nation).

As for reverence, another factor may be nationalism. The French or English or even Spanish or Germans are unified through common languages, cultures, and history. France has been the same country and nation through, what, nine states? England would still be England if they abolished the monarchy. The U.S., on the other hand, does not have a single historic nation or culture. The U.S.A. describes the state, not the land or the people. We don't have a motherland, which is why "homeland" sounds so Orwellian. "Native Americans" are the aboriginal remnants, not the majority of citizens descended from immigrants. The only common culture we have is a bland, shallow "American Dream" suburbansim, with many isolated minority and regional cultures. Most people want to belong to a tribe, and so they want a sense of nationalism like other peoples have. Lacking much else, the Constitution is pressed into service as a universal symbol of our unity as a single people (however illusory it may be). It serves a bit of the role of the symbolic monarchies of the northern countries.

[Edi]

Didn't Edi once mention some "First Principles" that take precedence over the official constitution of his country?

Yes, I did. That only happens when two constitutional rules come into direct conflict with each other. Such conflicts need to be resolved, and since there is no higher law to appeal to, the principles underlying the document, that are taken as axiomatic assumptions in order to be able to build a constitution in the first place, must be applied. And in that kind of cases it usually comes down to which one of the constitutional rights has more weight in that situation than the ones it conflicts with.

Even the US constitution has these principles underlying it. Sovereignty and nation are two, jurisdiction another and probably some more as well.

In any case, to get back on topic, you can find the Finnish constitution here (PDF) if you're inclined to take a look at it.

One example of several conflicting things that I know well relates to employment by religious organizations. The Finnish constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of association and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, and a host of other reasons.

So, this man has managed to land himself a job as a janitor or gardener or something for the Finnish Lutheran Church. He's an avowed atheist and constantly makes his views and his opposition to the church known in public and he's pretty damn vehement. The church fires him. He takes them to court, citing freedom of religion so that he can hold whatever beliefs he wants, points out the discrimination prohibitions and demands that he be given his job back.

The church tells him to piss off and cites freedom of association, claiming that requiring it to employ (against its will) someone who adamantly opposes it and refuses to abide by the church's rules is a violation of the freedom of association. There's a constitutional conflict right there. District Court rules in man's favor. Appeals court rules in his favor. The situation and its implications is discussed in the Constitution Committee of the Parliament in relation to an ongoing review of constitutional issues and the church's representatives are advised, unanimously, that they should just drop it because they will lose. Church files request for permission to appeal with Supreme Court, which grants the request. Case goes to Supreme Court, which overturns District and Appeals Court decisions on all points and rules in favor of the church, precisely on the basis of the argument the church put forth.

They determined that if not upheld in this case, freedom of association weighed more than the freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination clauses. That you can't force religious organizations to employ someone who intentionally goes against their core tenets. There is no obligation to employ someone who does not abide by their criteria, or freedom of association goes right out the window. There are other things that work into this as well, but I'd need to look the entire thing up.

The reason I know this case so well is because my father was the head legal counsel for the church for thirty years or so and he took care of the court side of this. He was the one who came up with the freedom of association argument and had the Constitution Committee tell him it's a done deal. He didn't back down from the principles he saw as being in play there and the Supreme Court agreed with him.

So now there's a precedent for Finns on this issue, but that does not mean other conflicts couldn't come up. And then you need to delve into why something particular was put in the constitution, what it was meant to accomplish and the implications if it was (or was not) given precedence in a conflict situation with another principle. There's no roadmap for that for anyone, beyond the first principles. Those go into pretty damned labyrinthine legal theory and meta-law stuff.

I tried to get into the Law Faculty of the University of Helsinki before I turned to IT, andt he entry exams are fucking grueling. This foundational legal theory and first principles is ALWAYS a serious part of it and you need to know all that shit by heart to even have a chance. It's been nearly fifteen years since those attempts and I still remember some of the stuff word for word. One of the reasons I remember this stuff so vividly is because it was so damned hard. In many places it was utterly counter-intuitive, convoluted and seemingly made no sense at all. Didn't help that the text made 'bone-dry' seem succulent and juicy by comparison. Then, after I'd read it something like ten or fifteen times, something clicked and I saw how those pieces fit together and how they formed a cohesive whole with a logical progression. It wasn't hard after that, as long as I can reference things when I need them.

I don't know how easy this explanation is to understand, but at the moment this is the best I can do. As for how well this sort of thing would apply elsewhere, you would need to consult a better informed legal scholar about it. Though I have noticed that it is not uncommon for specialized legal scholars to look at certain issues too narrowly, without considering how their interpretation would affect other areas of law. For reference, see some of my comments in the Lex Nokia threads in N&P.

[Tiriol]

What Edi said above is true. Although, to add something to the discussion, the Finnish system does not have the same amount of, for the purpose of the discussion at hand, worship of the Constitution as the US one because the Constitution in Finland has been re-booted in a very recent memory and, legalistically speaking, because the EU directives and acts are actually MORE important than the national law for all EU countries.

Because the Constitution has been under scrutiny and actual development within the last decade, it hasn't become the "sacred cow" in the same way as the US Constitution (since it clearly it can be changed and is actually sometimes subservient to the EU). Also, the original Constitution was heavily influenced by the earlier Swedish rule and, to lesser extent, by the Imperial Russian rule; unlike the US Constitution, Finnish Constitution wouldn't (and couldn't) claim as much "originality". The signing of the Constitution isn't as important in Finnish history teaching as the actual declaration (and realization) of independence in 6th of December 1917, since much of the Constitution was already fully formed and in active use before that (although there was a lot of debate about the head of state and the style of rule; constitutional monarchy was offered, although the system that was chosen was, in the end, a parliamentary republic with a strong head of state).

I tend to believe that the US Constitution worship can partly be, as I have already outlined above, attritubed to the fact that it was a very dramatic and noticeable change from the old system and that it actually was a great divorce from the Common Law of Great Britain; and because it included many if not all principles of human rights of the Age of Enlightenement, which was a rarity, if not downright unique, at its time. The Founding Fathers became by proxy figures of enlightened reason and of humane interests who ushered the former colonies into a new era free from claims of divine justification for rule. This historical signifigance may and does cloud the judgment of the people who live now; unlike in Finland, where we are fully aware that Finland's independence was a relatively small and unimportant part of a much greater play that was World War One and that our Constitution was heavily based on earlier royal and imperial systems and that it was originally cemented in a bloody and devastating civil war that left permanent scars on our nation. That's my two cents' worth to the discussion and I hope it contributed to it.

And about the Law Faculty in Helsinki University: I'm actually applying there this summer. I have a little bit of a head start in the reading (since many of the things required in this year's entrance exam are already known to me thanks to my free time reading (history of law) and current studies (human and basic rights)), but it's still one pain in the ass and I don't think I'll actually get into the Faculty, simply because life seems to conspire against me doing much reading regularly. And by the way, thank you Edi for that court case example; I've been looking for it for a long time, since I've head a little bit of an argument with some of my friends about whether an ordained priest can actually be an (outspoken) atheist or not and not to get booted.

[Thanas]

The U.S. doesn't have that. We burned our constitutional tradition in 1776, and had to start over from scratch.

That's not true. The US constitution is based at least in part on several british laws and has therefore arguably a tradition that reaches all the way back to the Magna Charta. It is not like the writers burnt all bridges when they wrote it.

[Tiriol]

The U.S. doesn't have that. We burned our constitutional tradition in 1776, and had to start over from scratch.

That's not true. The US constitution is based at least in part on several british laws and has therefore arguably a tradition that reaches all the way back to the Magna Charta. It is not like the writers burnt all bridges when they wrote it.

One could also point out that the philosophers and humanists on whose works the US Constitution was based had based their own works on classical Greek philosophers.

I suspect a lot of talk (including my own) about US Constitution's supposed lack of tradition stems from appearance, not from fact.

[Solauren]

Why are there so many Constitution worshippers in the US?

For the same reasons there are so many Divinity worshippers globally.

Appeal to Authority

and

Fear of taking responsiblities for ones own actions or inactions/consequences thereof.

"I don't have to worry about (topic), it's in/not in the Consitution!"

[Edi]

To add something to what Tiriol said and that goes a long, long way into the past, even before Sweish rule, which started around the beginning of the 13th century in Finland:

Our society has always been remarkably free and equitable throughout the ages. Much as Sweden, Norway and Iceland have been, though we have less of a Viking past. Women have traditionally been far more independent and influential in society when compared to central and southern Europe. Part of that is probably due to the environment, pointless oppression is a luxury you can't afford when you need everyone to work their ass off just to survive. Be that as it may, Swedish rule here was mostly very benevolent and Finland had great importance, being where it is in relation to Russia.

When Sweden lost Finland to Russia, we retained autonomy and kept the Swedish era laws with just some Imperial Russian additions and when the freedoms we had began to be curtailed, it ultimately led to the declaration of independence. So it's been a long process that culminated in our constitution. The 1922 constitution was a remarkably liberal, tolerant and enlightened document already and in the 1990s it had become sufficiently outdated as to require a major overhaul, which was completed in 2000. It was basically rewritten in its entirety, but when you look at the 1922 and 2000 constitutions side by side, the core parts are nearly identical. The 2000 one just happens to be even more liberal and has various additions of rights and prohibitions against certain types of discrimination and such. The bigger changes are in the division of powers, foreign policy and EU membership stuff.

[Darth Wong]

The U.S. doesn't have that. We burned our constitutional tradition in 1776, and had to start over from scratch.

That's not true. The US constitution is based at least in part on several british laws and has therefore arguably a tradition that reaches all the way back to the Magna Charta. It is not like the writers burnt all bridges when they wrote it.

They didn't, but Constitution worshippers act as if they did. You will often hear that all US law is based on the Constitution. You will never hear them ask what the Constitution itself is based on, because it is assumed to be a completely self-evident document, having sprung forth from the Mind of God or something.

[Questor]

That's not true. The US constitution is based at least in part on several british laws and has therefore arguably a tradition that reaches all the way back to the Magna Charta. It is not like the writers burnt all bridges when they wrote it.

They didn't, but Constitution worshippers act as if they did. You will often hear that all US law is based on the Constitution. You will never hear them ask what the Constitution itself is based on, because it is assumed to be a completely self-evident document, having sprung forth from the Mind of God or something.

I would hope that the reason they don't ask that has more to do with the fact that the other documents and ideas that the U.S. Constitution is based on don't have a legal standing in the United States. Also, I have never had an U.S. Government or poly-sci class that did not at least introduce those concepts. Hell, they were in the very first lecture in Administration of Justice 1.

I think Constitution worship comes more from what Mike said earlier, the "RAH-RAH US" nationalism ideas.

[Broomstick]

I think that "constitution worship" has actually increased in the last 20-30 years, particularly with the advent of conservative political administrations starting with Reagan and intensifying under the two Bushes. I don't remember the current level of knee-jerk constitution worship from back in the 1970's.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think a lot of it is because American nationalism is very strongly tied to the American state, particularly since many of the earlier cohesive identities that held American allegiance, such as Calvinist Protestantism in New England, English and Dutch background, and colony/state identities, have all largely faded away except as a kind of "national memory" that helps set the framework for American nationalism, and because significant parts of American nationalism were shaped in conflict and economic integration (particularly a certain Civil War) that reinforced the state as the holder of American identity. And that state, at least theoretically, was both created and bound by the Constitution, which, along with the Founding Fathers, pick up nationalist and mythic roles in "imagined community" that is any national identity.

It's like what Johonebesus said - France has gone through multiple regimes since the fall of the monarchy in the 1790s, including at least nine before the current one (the Fifth Republic):

1. The post-revolutionary government in the 1790s,
2. The government immediately after the Jacobins and Robespierre;
3. Napoleon's Rule
4. The restoration of the monarchy
5. The Second Republic
6. Louis Napoleon
7. The Third Republic
8. The Vichy Regime
9. The Fourth Republic
10. The Fifth Republic

And yet there is no question that there is a "French" national identity. I think, for a lot of Americans, it's more difficult to imagine an "American" national identity without the Constitution.

[Rye]

Where does the American obsession with "The Constitution" come from? It is viewed as basically sacred and people have the attitude that the constitution is more important than the purpose it was created to serve. To the point they are willing to accept large scale suffering that's in line with the constitution and would fight tooth and nail against things that eliminate suffering that are contrary to the constitution.

The American obsession with the constitution comes from the social upheaval that was inherent in its creation. Fighting a rebellion against an empire and a few decent, smart slaveowners men threw together a generally enlightened document. This rather unsurprisingly leads to myth-building in the cultural consciousness; it starts getting associated with all sorts of emotions and notions of the sacred, due to its "heroic" origins, and this feeds into dogma.

Dogma then goes on to imply that it is an inerrant document, and any social failings that result from it are either "poorly interpreted" or "not in the spirit of it" or similar, and its cultural veneration prohibits the treatment of it as a flawed, man-made document that couldn't possibly deal with everything and must be updated periodically.

[Simplicius]

I think that "constitution worship" has actually increased in the last 20-30 years, particularly with the advent of conservative political administrations starting with Reagan and intensifying under the two Bushes. I don't remember the current level of knee-jerk constitution worship from back in the 1970's.

If I had to hazard a guess, there would be a direct connection between a rise of constitution-worship and the course of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Court 'switched in time' in the late 1930s and began supporting FDR's massive governmental expansion, then later on the Warren Court and others grounded civil rights jurisprudence in constitutional reasoning. In the 1980s, as the conservative resurgence begins, suddenly the Constitution "ought to be" treated as a precious, immutable document. This is part and parcel of the conservative attempt to roll back liberalism everywhere; by securing the Constitution they 'protect' it from justices who interpreted it in a way that supported liberal laws and programs.

I think it's worth noting that Justices Scalia and Thomas, both nominated to the Court in the conservative era, are originalists.

There is a certain reverence attached to the Constitution by most who study it or interpret it, but I would not go so far as to call that "worship" simply because it does not prevent sensible people from considering the document straightforwardly and rectifying its shortcomings - or advocating such - where possible. As it is, the amendment process is difficult enough that the United States has seen fit to let the Supreme Court be the primary vehicle for rectification.

[HamsterViking]

I think a great deal of it simply comes from enculturation. Just from being raised in America you're taught to "worship" the constitution the same as you're taught to hold a fork a certain way, and what differant colors represent. Nearly every American is brought up to admire the founding fathers. A few months ago my five year old came home from school talking about how great George Washington was. He knew almost nothing about the man or what he did except that he was the first prsedent and he was great. This is very hard to shake. Even people like me, who look at everythig skepticly, and question authority constantly admire the founding fathers. I sure as hell admire them. I may not completely agree with a bunch of rich, white, slave owning men who didn't want to pay their taxes, but a I still agree with a lot of their ideas and adeal. They were intelligent, educated men, and they were influenced by the "enlightenment" of the 17th and 18th centuries.

In addition to this admiraton of the founding fathers, many of us have a nearly unshakable faith in (at least) the basic ideas and principles of our government's structure. Now when you look at the fact that our basic government structure comes from the constitution which was written by the founding fathers, it almost goes without thinking that the constitutin is beyond questioning. This thread has got me thinking about my own views on the constitution (which I've never really examined before) and their influences. I notice that when talking to my dad about politics, plenty of our arguments (not that we're arguing with each other, but on the same side) boil down to "It's (in the constiution/unconstituional)!" It's kind of unsettling for me now that I think about it. Maybe it's just because I'm young?

(A lot of this paragraps was in parenthases, that bothers me too. I'm a better writer than that!)

[Edi]

The question you need to ask is what is the purpose of the constitution and what is the reason why a particular section is in there. That will allow you to look at things on a deeper level. If you take the time to read the constitution of some other country and examine the similarities and differences, it amy also allow you to see things in a different light.

[Darth Wong]

As stated elsewhere, that's why the Constitution is a lot like a religion. It's taken as an article of faith that it's a just and righteous document. None of its worshippers ever think it should be subjected to moral scrutiny on any level; instead, they see it as the benchmark of morality itself.

That feeds into the rights-based morality argument where it is assumed that rights constitute the entirety of morality, simply because that's the way the Constitution tends to be viewed.

[Lusankya]

That feeds into the rights-based morality argument where it is assumed that rights constitute the entirety of morality, simply because that's the way the Constitution tends to be viewed.

This is particularly evident in gun control debates. If you argue against an American, they always bring the constitution up as an argument in favour of gun ownership, even when the argument is about practicality and not legality. The whole subtext seems to be "it's in the constitution, therefore it must be right". You have to actually remind people that not everyone cares about that particular piece of parchment.

[Lord Insanity]

For anyone that doesn't know, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the federal government. That is the whole basis for the courts ability to strike down lower laws as unconstitutional. The constitution worship and the reverence of the "founding fathers" stems from wanting to change the constitution without having to go through the proper procedures. That's the whole "well what did they really mean by this..." bullshit right there. For example conservatives want to say the first amendment doesn't really protect non-christian beliefs even though it does. So they try to convince people the "founding fathers" were all devout christians and then say "well what did they really mean by this..." See they know they would never have the support to actually pass an amendment to the constitution that allowed them to oppress non-christian beliefs so they pull the bullshit card. Liberals do the same thing with gun control arguments. It all boils down to a person or group wanting to change something that would never pass the amendments process regardless of whether that change is a good or bad idea.