3 ms·

The Constitution is simply a means to an end now; it's merely a political talking point. It stopped being the actual basis for ethical, legal governing a long t

The Constitution is simply a means to an end now; it's merely a political talking point. It stopped being the actual basis for ethical, legal governing a long time ago. If your house's foundation (the Constitution) is crumbling, do you continue to build on top of it (laws) to keep the house from collapsing?

dwe3000 10y ago
I think your analogy is a little misleading. In my opinion, the foundation is still strong, but where the foundation was for one shape of house, the additions and changes made on top of the foundation are unstable. I do agree that for most discussions around US Federal government, the Constitution does not play an ethical or legal role.
TelmoMenezes 10y ago
> If your house's foundation (the Constitution) is crumbling, do you continue to build on top of it (laws) to keep the house from collapsing? To me this is one of those statements that might sound superficially wise, but hides something very dark. Yes, if you take the analogy literally, it seems foolish to build on crumbling foundations. But that sort of literalism might be silly here. What do you mean by "crumbling"? The entire project of a democratic republic lies on the collective respect for a set of rules that provide the scaffolding for all power to be granted by the people, according to the will of the people, to do what the people think is best for them. Right? That's the whole idea of government in the American sense, correct? Now if the political class starts to ignore some of the ground rules (which is equivalent to taking power for itself), and nobody prevents this, can we claim that the democratic republic maintained its integrity? Or was democracy itself eroded? And if the answer to this last question is yes, how can one defend that the moral choice is to just accept it? Shouldn't we obviously demand strict observance of the ground rules, so that the legitimacy of those who exercise power in our name is unquestionable, before anything else? And then try to change the ground rules if the majority feels that they no longer serve us? And then strictly observe the new rules so that legitimacy is not compromised, and so on? Or am I just crazy?
pharrlax 10y ago
>If your house's foundation (the Constitution) is crumbling, do you continue to build on top of it (laws) to keep the house from collapsing? Obviously a country is not a house, and countries have been very successful with only a single constitution (America) and with many (France). But generally changing constitutions frequently does not make for a politically stable state, and much in terms of quality of life rests on political stability.

dwe3000 10y ago

I think your analogy is a little misleading. In my opinion, the foundation is still strong, but where the foundation was for one shape of house, the additions and changes made on top of the foundation are unstable. I do agree that for most discussions around US Federal government, the Constitution does not play an ethical or legal role.

TelmoMenezes 10y ago

> If your house's foundation (the Constitution) is crumbling, do you continue to build on top of it (laws) to keep the house from collapsing? To me this is one of those statements that might sound superficially wise, but hides something very dark. Yes, if you take the analogy literally, it seems foolish to build on crumbling foundations. But that sort of literalism might be silly here. What do you mean by "crumbling"? The entire project of a democratic republic lies on the collective respect for a set of rules that provide the scaffolding for all power to be granted by the people, according to the will of the people, to do what the people think is best for them. Right? That's the whole idea of government in the American sense, correct? Now if the political class starts to ignore some of the ground rules (which is equivalent to taking power for itself), and nobody prevents this, can we claim that the democratic republic maintained its integrity? Or was democracy itself eroded? And if the answer to this last question is yes, how can one defend that the moral choice is to just accept it? Shouldn't we obviously demand strict observance of the ground rules, so that the legitimacy of those who exercise power in our name is unquestionable, before anything else? And then try to change the ground rules if the majority feels that they no longer serve us? And then strictly observe the new rules so that legitimacy is not compromised, and so on? Or am I just crazy?

pharrlax 10y ago

>If your house's foundation (the Constitution) is crumbling, do you continue to build on top of it (laws) to keep the house from collapsing? Obviously a country is not a house, and countries have been very successful with only a single constitution (America) and with many (France). But generally changing constitutions frequently does not make for a politically stable state, and much in terms of quality of life rests on political stability.