4 ms·

I always find the american obsession with the constitution (& founding fathers) a little weird. How about deciding what's best for now instead of trying to inte

by jules 15y ago

I always find the american obsession with the constitution (& founding fathers) a little weird. How about deciding what's best for now instead of trying to interpret the words of a couple of guys 200 years ago as a gospel about how the internet should work?

nknight 15y ago
So we can end up with laws like this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745 Altering rights in the heat of the moment is precisely what we don't want.
- alextgordon 15y ago
  Don't be silly. For every repressive law you can find for the UK, I can find 10 for the US. Despite your nicely formatted constitution, your rights are fucked. Ever been to an airport? What you need is not greater adherence to a bit of paper, but sane elected officials and sane people electing those officials.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Please go find those ten. I'll wait here. Actually, you have to go find twenty, since I'll just add RIPA. Sorry, thirty: Terrorism Act 2000, even predates the 9/11 hysteria. No, forty: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Fifty: Terrorism Act 2006 England still has an established church. I'll be nice and just count that as one, so... Sixty... Not all of our rights are as respected as they should be, but if you had any actual knowledge of US history, you'd realize that without our written constitution, we would have ten repressive laws for every one in the UK. It is only thanks to that constitution and the powers of our courts that we have any remaining freedom at all.
    - barrkel 15y ago
      It's a peculiar thing, but when I'm in the US, and potentially subject to the death penalty and aware that the people around me may be armed with guns - particularly armed police - I feel far more fear than I do as an Irishman in London. Those two things, gun culture and death penalties, are massive. From a UK perspective, the US executive looks almost rampant. The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities. The US president has just recently asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial upon conviction by some secret and undefined court ("due process, not judicial process"). At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity.
      - nknight 15y ago
        > Those two things, gun culture and death penalties, are massive. I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety. > The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities. The constitution is in many ways an effective check on all levels of government, but not in all matters. Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights. > asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland. > At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity. The fact that warrantless surveillance had to be done in secret is exactly the point. I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted.
        barrkel 15y ago
        > I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety. I'm sure I could be very "free" in the anarchy of Somalia, but without safety, effective freedoms are very limited. Quite a lot of government tyranny is needed to create a space for freedom to begin with. A social safety net, subsidized or free college education, socialized medicine (whether through public or universal private coverage), etc.; I consider some of these things fundamental to living a life of freedom rather than fear. > Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights. Gonzales v. Raich, for example. > I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland. I'm not aware of the British prime minister ever standing up in the Commons and effectively announcing the right to kill UK citizens. Government wrongdoing, particularly by security services, are ten a penny in most large states, IMO. These days, in the western world, it's usually governments succumbing to US arm-twisting. I understand that you're invested in defending the US. I, however, don't have a particularly strong motivation to defend the UK; I'm not a UK citizen, I've just lived here for a few years. I'm not interested in attacking the US in this argument. I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, I feel more free, and less afraid of the state, in the UK than I do in the US - and I work for a US company and visit the US multiple times every year for weeks at a time. (If I wanted to attack Parliament's involvement in Ireland, I'd rather point to Cromwell. But those days are past.) > I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted. If this is your true position, be aware that you have not chosen one of a dichotomy; you have in fact chosen a superset of tyranny. Not just evil acts; but covert evil acts. But, of course, the UK has committed its own share of covert evil acts. I don't think it's ever been caught running a network of secret prisons in modern times, though.
CamperBob 15y ago
How about deciding what's best for now Because laws tend to last well beyond the "now." Another way of putting it (not original with me): "You know you have a stable, mature society when people commit random atrocities and the laws don't change."
spindritf 15y ago
That's because Americans, unlike Europeans for example, aren't really bound by any pre-state history. There were no American tribes uniting, no real ethnicity, just fairly random people from around the world (though white Europeans mostly mattered). So the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence, some other writings) is like a deal signed by those people with their government and they treat it like a deal -- it shouldn't be changed without a very good reason and consent from parties involved, the original intent matters, etc, etc. The whole idea of a social contract makes much more sense there.
mindslight 15y ago
The constitution, founders' philosophies, and other axiomatic ideas of government are a major part of how people are indoctrinated into the system throughout their schooling. Emphasizing a simple logical framework encourages them to identify with a fundamental soundness in the process despite the realities of the resulting utterly dysfunctional system. The constitution delusion continues in adulthood, with one generally either thinking that the "deviation" (ie outright contradiction) is necessary "interpretation" for the modern world OR thinking that constitutional law just isn't being followed hard enough, and as soon as the courts get around to making correct decisions we'll see some "real change". Modern day USG is clearly not bound by any sort of controlling law, document, or even the electoral process; but lacking any mechanism of change, cognitive dissonance is the only thing most people have. (PS. Run through the Bill of Rights and count how many amendments could even possibly be in effect. I count three.)
felipemnoa 15y ago
>> How about deciding what's best for now What is best now is not necessarily what is best for everyone. The constitution prevents mob rule. Is a filter that allows changes at a very slow rate so that we do not screw ourselves or some other minority at the heat of the moment.
kingkilr 15y ago
You can make an argument that we should be contemplating changing our constitution, but what I read you saying was: "How about you just do whatever you want, instead of trying to actually follow the law?"
zecho 15y ago
I'm going to write the following with the caveat that there are plenty of idiots who like to put words in the founding father's mouth, not realizing how divided they actually were post revolution: Our Constitution is fundamentally built on the belief of individual freedom and equality of man in a "state of nature" (John Locke) and that the Bill of Rights builds on Locke's theories as to how the government should protect property and create Justice (The preamble to the Constitution, which also throws back to the Declaration). The whole argument between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans was about the balance of natural freedoms and government impediment of those freedoms. The culmination of these arguments (an argument which eventually led to the Civil War) boiled into the supreme court and led to the concept of judicial review, which lays the ground work for legal precedent. So, we're obsessed with precedent and the founding fathers not necessarily because of what we think they wanted, but because every legal argument stems from the belief that man is, and of right ought to be, free and independent. The Constitution forms the basis of the social contract of free and independent people. The Constitution can be changed and we have done so some 27 times. However, every argument fundamentally stems from the original point of view that all men are created equal. It's not about interpreting the words of "a couple of guys" from 200 years ago. It's about whether or not our government has broken the social contract. The idea of "equality" itself has been a moving target in America, from land-owners to the Civil Rights movement. We are a country born out of tyranny, you know... It's fair to say that fear of tyranny is embedded in our culture and our laws.
Turing_Machine 15y ago
The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. There's a clearly-defined process for changing it (it's been done 27 times, in fact). "Deciding what's best for now" inevitably leads to abuses, or so many of us see it (who gets to "decide" what's "best"?) "Interpret the words of a couple of guys 200 years ago as a gospel about how the internet should work? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That still works for me. What problems do you see with it?
- stephengillie 15y ago
  Who decides what religion is? Who decides what speech is? Who decides who the press are? Who determines peaceful assembly vs riotous mob behavior? Who determines the processes by which we can petition our government and the process' effectiveness? At best, these are all still grey areas we've been trying to nail down since before these words were written.
bane 15y ago
What's interesting is that the U.S. constitution, even a couple hundred years after the fact seems like an outright progressive and radical document in most of the world today.
reitzensteinm 15y ago
Actually I'm not an American, I'm Australian. I used to think the constitution obsession was naive nationalistic pride, but I've come to respect it. It would be best if pragmatism could rule the day. However, that presupposes that decisions are being made for the benefit of the country rather than for political and personal reasons. Even up to the highest levels of office, I just don't think that is a standard politicians are living up to. I'm not sure any human is capable of it. The constitution provides an anchor point to restrict the government, especially during turbulent times. I think there's incalculable value in that, even though it's slowly being eroded. Sure, the Patriot Act slipped through, but how many more would have without it? Being bound by a 200 year old document isn't ideal, but it's better than the alternatives.

by jules 15y ago

nknight 15y ago

So we can end up with laws like this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745 Altering rights in the heat of the moment is precisely what we don't want.

alextgordon 15y ago
Don't be silly. For every repressive law you can find for the UK, I can find 10 for the US. Despite your nicely formatted constitution, your rights are fucked. Ever been to an airport? What you need is not greater adherence to a bit of paper, but sane elected officials and sane people electing those officials.
- nknight 15y ago
  Please go find those ten. I'll wait here. Actually, you have to go find twenty, since I'll just add RIPA. Sorry, thirty: Terrorism Act 2000, even predates the 9/11 hysteria. No, forty: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Fifty: Terrorism Act 2006 England still has an established church. I'll be nice and just count that as one, so... Sixty... Not all of our rights are as respected as they should be, but if you had any actual knowledge of US history, you'd realize that without our written constitution, we would have ten repressive laws for every one in the UK. It is only thanks to that constitution and the powers of our courts that we have any remaining freedom at all.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    It's a peculiar thing, but when I'm in the US, and potentially subject to the death penalty and aware that the people around me may be armed with guns - particularly armed police - I feel far more fear than I do as an Irishman in London. Those two things, gun culture and death penalties, are massive. From a UK perspective, the US executive looks almost rampant. The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities. The US president has just recently asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial upon conviction by some secret and undefined court ("due process, not judicial process"). At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity.
    - nknight 15y ago
      > Those two things, gun culture and death penalties, are massive. I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety. > The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities. The constitution is in many ways an effective check on all levels of government, but not in all matters. Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights. > asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland. > At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity. The fact that warrantless surveillance had to be done in secret is exactly the point. I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted.
      - barrkel 15y ago
        > I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety. I'm sure I could be very "free" in the anarchy of Somalia, but without safety, effective freedoms are very limited. Quite a lot of government tyranny is needed to create a space for freedom to begin with. A social safety net, subsidized or free college education, socialized medicine (whether through public or universal private coverage), etc.; I consider some of these things fundamental to living a life of freedom rather than fear. > Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights. Gonzales v. Raich, for example. > I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland. I'm not aware of the British prime minister ever standing up in the Commons and effectively announcing the right to kill UK citizens. Government wrongdoing, particularly by security services, are ten a penny in most large states, IMO. These days, in the western world, it's usually governments succumbing to US arm-twisting. I understand that you're invested in defending the US. I, however, don't have a particularly strong motivation to defend the UK; I'm not a UK citizen, I've just lived here for a few years. I'm not interested in attacking the US in this argument. I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, I feel more free, and less afraid of the state, in the UK than I do in the US - and I work for a US company and visit the US multiple times every year for weeks at a time. (If I wanted to attack Parliament's involvement in Ireland, I'd rather point to Cromwell. But those days are past.) > I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted. If this is your true position, be aware that you have not chosen one of a dichotomy; you have in fact chosen a superset of tyranny. Not just evil acts; but covert evil acts. But, of course, the UK has committed its own share of covert evil acts. I don't think it's ever been caught running a network of secret prisons in modern times, though.

CamperBob 15y ago

How about deciding what's best for now Because laws tend to last well beyond the "now." Another way of putting it (not original with me): "You know you have a stable, mature society when people commit random atrocities and the laws don't change."

spindritf 15y ago

That's because Americans, unlike Europeans for example, aren't really bound by any pre-state history. There were no American tribes uniting, no real ethnicity, just fairly random people from around the world (though white Europeans mostly mattered). So the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence, some other writings) is like a deal signed by those people with their government and they treat it like a deal -- it shouldn't be changed without a very good reason and consent from parties involved, the original intent matters, etc, etc. The whole idea of a social contract makes much more sense there.

mindslight 15y ago

The constitution, founders' philosophies, and other axiomatic ideas of government are a major part of how people are indoctrinated into the system throughout their schooling. Emphasizing a simple logical framework encourages them to identify with a fundamental soundness in the process despite the realities of the resulting utterly dysfunctional system. The constitution delusion continues in adulthood, with one generally either thinking that the "deviation" (ie outright contradiction) is necessary "interpretation" for the modern world OR thinking that constitutional law just isn't being followed hard enough, and as soon as the courts get around to making correct decisions we'll see some "real change". Modern day USG is clearly not bound by any sort of controlling law, document, or even the electoral process; but lacking any mechanism of change, cognitive dissonance is the only thing most people have. (PS. Run through the Bill of Rights and count how many amendments could even possibly be in effect. I count three.)

felipemnoa 15y ago

>> How about deciding what's best for now What is best now is not necessarily what is best for everyone. The constitution prevents mob rule. Is a filter that allows changes at a very slow rate so that we do not screw ourselves or some other minority at the heat of the moment.

kingkilr 15y ago

You can make an argument that we should be contemplating changing our constitution, but what I read you saying was: "How about you just do whatever you want, instead of trying to actually follow the law?"

zecho 15y ago

I'm going to write the following with the caveat that there are plenty of idiots who like to put words in the founding father's mouth, not realizing how divided they actually were post revolution: Our Constitution is fundamentally built on the belief of individual freedom and equality of man in a "state of nature" (John Locke) and that the Bill of Rights builds on Locke's theories as to how the government should protect property and create Justice (The preamble to the Constitution, which also throws back to the Declaration). The whole argument between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans was about the balance of natural freedoms and government impediment of those freedoms. The culmination of these arguments (an argument which eventually led to the Civil War) boiled into the supreme court and led to the concept of judicial review, which lays the ground work for legal precedent. So, we're obsessed with precedent and the founding fathers not necessarily because of what we think they wanted, but because every legal argument stems from the belief that man is, and of right ought to be, free and independent. The Constitution forms the basis of the social contract of free and independent people. The Constitution can be changed and we have done so some 27 times. However, every argument fundamentally stems from the original point of view that all men are created equal. It's not about interpreting the words of "a couple of guys" from 200 years ago. It's about whether or not our government has broken the social contract. The idea of "equality" itself has been a moving target in America, from land-owners to the Civil Rights movement. We are a country born out of tyranny, you know... It's fair to say that fear of tyranny is embedded in our culture and our laws.

Turing_Machine 15y ago

The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. There's a clearly-defined process for changing it (it's been done 27 times, in fact). "Deciding what's best for now" inevitably leads to abuses, or so many of us see it (who gets to "decide" what's "best"?) "Interpret the words of a couple of guys 200 years ago as a gospel about how the internet should work? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That still works for me. What problems do you see with it?

stephengillie 15y ago
Who decides what religion is? Who decides what speech is? Who decides who the press are? Who determines peaceful assembly vs riotous mob behavior? Who determines the processes by which we can petition our government and the process' effectiveness? At best, these are all still grey areas we've been trying to nail down since before these words were written.

bane 15y ago

What's interesting is that the U.S. constitution, even a couple hundred years after the fact seems like an outright progressive and radical document in most of the world today.

reitzensteinm 15y ago

Actually I'm not an American, I'm Australian. I used to think the constitution obsession was naive nationalistic pride, but I've come to respect it. It would be best if pragmatism could rule the day. However, that presupposes that decisions are being made for the benefit of the country rather than for political and personal reasons. Even up to the highest levels of office, I just don't think that is a standard politicians are living up to. I'm not sure any human is capable of it. The constitution provides an anchor point to restrict the government, especially during turbulent times. I think there's incalculable value in that, even though it's slowly being eroded. Sure, the Patriot Act slipped through, but how many more would have without it? Being bound by a 200 year old document isn't ideal, but it's better than the alternatives.