5 ms·

Slavery was the issue that almost destroyed the Union before it formed and nearly destroyed the Union again in 1860. But it seems we worked that one out. Prohi

Slavery was the issue that almost destroyed the Union before it formed and nearly destroyed the Union again in 1860. But it seems we worked that one out. Prohibition was instituted through the proper constitutional channel of the amendment process -- and repealed the same way. You may view it as the extreme opposite of the gay marriage issue today: a sweeping prevailing mindset that turned out to be a really bad idea in the long run. As for women, Jim Crow we worked those out too. I can't respond to your '"sanctity" of marriage' comment, because all I'm getting is vague left-wing ire. Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard. Why is the 9th Amendment there at all? Does the government treat us as serfs or as sovereigns? The Constitution is not perfect: it did not foresee the level of political activism present on the Supreme Court throughout the years. The Court has been amending the Constitution for far too long without proper oversight. We should not be able to predict the votes of the Justices, since most of us are not constitutional scholars. Yet we can... The USA is different than most countries throughout history, but it has lost its way. The latest NSA / IRS news could be seen as simply the last in a long train of 'repeated injuries and usurpations' to and of our Liberty.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Really? Have you lived outside of the USA at all? Because I fail to see how anyone who has can make this statement. Life is no better or worse. The constitution does absolutely nothing. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard This says more about American culture than it does anything else. Of course Canada survived without a constitution for most of it's existence, the UK still doesn't have one, and Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. In fact, most countries in the world don't have a constitution as America knows it to be. They seem to be doing just fine. The USA is different than most countries throughout history, No, actually, it isn't. The principles of the USA were in place in Athens and Rome thousands of years ago, the Magna Carta and the Republic of France more recently. Stop believing your own mythology.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > the UK still doesn't have one The UK does not have a codified constitution. There still exists a set of laws and conventions that make up the UK constitution.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    Ergo it doesn't have the same thing the US does.
    - regularfry 13y ago
      The only thing it's lacking is a snappy one-page document.
      - run4yourlives 13y ago
        ... that can be referred to in front of a judge and supersedes everything else.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Every country with some form of election has something analagous to a constitution, because that's what a constitution is: a description of how government is formed, performed, and powers entailed. Many countries without elections also have something similar. This being said, without a document specifically called 'the constitution', the phrase "that's against the constitution" doesn't get a lot of play. Australia doesn't need it to be in the constitution that slavery is against the law. It's been illegal here since before the civil war (throughout the British Empire in the 1830s). We did have some slavery - 'blackbirding' - and it was illegal without having to be in a constitution. There is absolutely nothing magical about a constitution, it's just that generally making changes to that particular piece of law is defined as being more difficult than other bits of law, given that it also describes how the whole thing works. In the US, if you can get your law attached to the constitution, it's harder to repeal since you need a greater majority to do so. That's all. There's nothing that makes rights more special because they're 'in the constitution'.

run4yourlives 13y ago

Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Really? Have you lived outside of the USA at all? Because I fail to see how anyone who has can make this statement. Life is no better or worse. The constitution does absolutely nothing. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard This says more about American culture than it does anything else. Of course Canada survived without a constitution for most of it's existence, the UK still doesn't have one, and Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. In fact, most countries in the world don't have a constitution as America knows it to be. They seem to be doing just fine. The USA is different than most countries throughout history, No, actually, it isn't. The principles of the USA were in place in Athens and Rome thousands of years ago, the Magna Carta and the Republic of France more recently. Stop believing your own mythology.

vidarh 13y ago
> the UK still doesn't have one The UK does not have a codified constitution. There still exists a set of laws and conventions that make up the UK constitution.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Ergo it doesn't have the same thing the US does.
  - regularfry 13y ago
    The only thing it's lacking is a snappy one-page document.
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      ... that can be referred to in front of a judge and supersedes everything else.
- vacri 13y ago
  Every country with some form of election has something analagous to a constitution, because that's what a constitution is: a description of how government is formed, performed, and powers entailed. Many countries without elections also have something similar. This being said, without a document specifically called 'the constitution', the phrase "that's against the constitution" doesn't get a lot of play. Australia doesn't need it to be in the constitution that slavery is against the law. It's been illegal here since before the civil war (throughout the British Empire in the 1830s). We did have some slavery - 'blackbirding' - and it was illegal without having to be in a constitution. There is absolutely nothing magical about a constitution, it's just that generally making changes to that particular piece of law is defined as being more difficult than other bits of law, given that it also describes how the whole thing works. In the US, if you can get your law attached to the constitution, it's harder to repeal since you need a greater majority to do so. That's all. There's nothing that makes rights more special because they're 'in the constitution'.