3 ms·
There are two problems with this analysis. The first is that the Constitution is not a "contract" with which Americans "collectively bargained away" anything,
by drewcrawford 14y ago
There are two problems with this analysis. The first is that the Constitution is not a "contract" with which Americans "collectively bargained away" anything, because modern Americans were not alive at the alleged time of bargaining away things, and being alive is a prerequisite for making a contract. To believe in constitutionalism is essentially to not believe in governance by the consent of the governed.
The other problem is that even if it was a contract, we seem to ignore it, because we pass the laws described in the article. So it's not a very effective system.
- rayiner 14y agoI'm using "contract" in a somewhat figurative sense here. Obviously the Constitution isn't an ordinary contract, but it has many of the characteristics of one. Also, I think it's a modern conceit that one cannot be bound by obligations agreed to before one was born. Society and government are continuous, and we "consent" to the governing rules by being born and choosing to remain a part of a particular society governed by a particular government. As for the laws described in the article--they are not the product of Congress "ignoring the Constitution." The appearance of "ignoring the Constitution" is itself the product of certain civil libertarians believing the Constitution says more than it does, or focusing on what they wished the Constitution said rather than what it does say.
- TruthElixirX 14y ago>but it has many of the characteristics of one. And what characteristics are those?
- marshray 14y agoI think it's fair to call the US Constitution a contract between the 13 "States" which agreed to "Unite" by it.