3 ms·

As another non-American, I'm curious as to why you would say that. The US constitution was objectively very far ahead of its time, and it still is a far better

by qsort 4y ago

As another non-American, I'm curious as to why you would say that. The US constitution was objectively very far ahead of its time, and it still is a far better attempt at a constitutional order than most. Very rarely can a country's problems be blamed on its constitution. The UK doesn't even have one and it's still one of the world's most advanced democracies.

lovich 4y ago
Well if you go by the sentiments of some of the authors of the document, they’d likely be appalled we’re still using it. Jefferson wanted it to expire every 19? 20? years so that the country wasn’t governed by the sentiments of long dead men
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The "founding fathers" had a diverse set of beliefs, you can pick and choose to support a variety of diametrically opposed points of view. Consider for instance John Jay, who thought that Christian rulers guided by Christian principles were necessary to maintain order and freedom, and thought the Republic would be doomed if it ever forgot this. A far cry from Jefferson's deism.
  - lovich 4y ago
    They did have varied beliefs especially between New England and the southern colonies, but I am referencing Jefferson here as he was one of the main authors of the constitution and not just a signatory
azinman2 4y ago
You have the Magna Carta
- pmyteh 4y ago
  Kinda. Bits of it are still in force[0], despite us not having a definitive text, but much of it was written to deal with contemporary political problems and was repudiated fairly quickly. It's more important as the start of a (semi-mythical) tradition of political liberty then as an ongoing source of constitutional law. Even more excitingly, some of the documents we consider constitutional aren't even statutes. My favourite is a pseudonymous letter to The Times sent in 1950, which authoritatively established a constitutional convention for when the monarch can refuse his Prime Minister a dissolution of Parliament[1]. (The writer, 'Senex', was the King's private secretary Sir Alan Lascelles). [0]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9 [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
- ben_w 4y ago
  As a totemic icon sure, but it has mostly been repealed, and it was more of a peace treaty between the king and his barons. Also: > Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Very rarely can a country's problems be blamed on its constitution. Actually, the usually trace back to the constitution, one way or another. > The UK doesn't even have one Yes, it does. [0] It's not an explicitly separate written document, but that's not required of a constitution. The idea of a constitution predates the spread of the practice of having them as distinct documents. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > that's not required of a constitution It's not, but it helps.
FerociousTimes 4y ago
The USC so far proved to be resilient, adaptable and durable but timeless? It remains to be seen but I have my doubts esp. in a future socio-political context where post-modernism and cyberpunk ideals reign supreme.

by qsort 4y ago

lovich 4y ago

Well if you go by the sentiments of some of the authors of the document, they’d likely be appalled we’re still using it. Jefferson wanted it to expire every 19? 20? years so that the country wasn’t governed by the sentiments of long dead men

MichaelCollins 4y ago
The "founding fathers" had a diverse set of beliefs, you can pick and choose to support a variety of diametrically opposed points of view. Consider for instance John Jay, who thought that Christian rulers guided by Christian principles were necessary to maintain order and freedom, and thought the Republic would be doomed if it ever forgot this. A far cry from Jefferson's deism.
- lovich 4y ago
  They did have varied beliefs especially between New England and the southern colonies, but I am referencing Jefferson here as he was one of the main authors of the constitution and not just a signatory

azinman2 4y ago

You have the Magna Carta

pmyteh 4y ago
Kinda. Bits of it are still in force[0], despite us not having a definitive text, but much of it was written to deal with contemporary political problems and was repudiated fairly quickly. It's more important as the start of a (semi-mythical) tradition of political liberty then as an ongoing source of constitutional law. Even more excitingly, some of the documents we consider constitutional aren't even statutes. My favourite is a pseudonymous letter to The Times sent in 1950, which authoritatively established a constitutional convention for when the monarch can refuse his Prime Minister a dissolution of Parliament[1]. (The writer, 'Senex', was the King's private secretary Sir Alan Lascelles). [0]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9 [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
ben_w 4y ago
As a totemic icon sure, but it has mostly been repealed, and it was more of a peace treaty between the king and his barons. Also: > Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Very rarely can a country's problems be blamed on its constitution. Actually, the usually trace back to the constitution, one way or another. > The UK doesn't even have one Yes, it does. [0] It's not an explicitly separate written document, but that's not required of a constitution. The idea of a constitution predates the spread of the practice of having them as distinct documents. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> that's not required of a constitution It's not, but it helps.

FerociousTimes 4y ago

The USC so far proved to be resilient, adaptable and durable but timeless? It remains to be seen but I have my doubts esp. in a future socio-political context where post-modernism and cyberpunk ideals reign supreme.