4 ms·

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 any

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'.
freehunter 13y ago
How many thousands of countries have there been throughout history, though? You pointing to four really just proves the point.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Tell you what, when you point to at least 4 countries that are significantly different than the US that do not have defined constitutions, I'll concede to your argument. Do you really think that something magical happened in 1775 for the history of humanity, or do you think perhaps it was just another example of the (rather established) idea of republicanism? Food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
  - freehunter 13y ago
    Just because the US wasn't the first doesn't mean it's not "different than most countries throughout history" unless most countries have been like the US with well defined constitutions. Bear in mind, "most countries" doesn't only include "most Western countries" or "most modern countries". Even that Wikipedia article only lists a handful throughout history.
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      If this is the case it should be rather straightforward for you to provide an answer to the question I posed in the previous comment, which you have yet to do.
      - freehunter 13y ago
        I'll freely admit I'm no expert; I wasn't arguing that I am. I was merely pointing out the fact that four is not a statistically relevant sample size when the population is potentially in the thousands. If you're an expert in the area, I'd like to hear your answer to your question, or a more relevant sample size. What I'm pointing out is that "most" has a definition, and less than 1% doesn't meet that critera.

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'.

freehunter 13y ago

How many thousands of countries have there been throughout history, though? You pointing to four really just proves the point.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Tell you what, when you point to at least 4 countries that are significantly different than the US that do not have defined constitutions, I'll concede to your argument. Do you really think that something magical happened in 1775 for the history of humanity, or do you think perhaps it was just another example of the (rather established) idea of republicanism? Food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
- freehunter 13y ago
  Just because the US wasn't the first doesn't mean it's not "different than most countries throughout history" unless most countries have been like the US with well defined constitutions. Bear in mind, "most countries" doesn't only include "most Western countries" or "most modern countries". Even that Wikipedia article only lists a handful throughout history.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    If this is the case it should be rather straightforward for you to provide an answer to the question I posed in the previous comment, which you have yet to do.
    - freehunter 13y ago
      I'll freely admit I'm no expert; I wasn't arguing that I am. I was merely pointing out the fact that four is not a statistically relevant sample size when the population is potentially in the thousands. If you're an expert in the area, I'd like to hear your answer to your question, or a more relevant sample size. What I'm pointing out is that "most" has a definition, and less than 1% doesn't meet that critera.