The US Constitution - It doesn't help

[Ziggurat]

If it's a good idea, fair, just and useful, that is a secondary concern to if it's in the constitution?

Well, yes. If you make and enforce laws which are not constitutional, you are breaking the laws of the United States. You are discarding the rule of law, undermining the very basis of law itself. You cannot justify lawlessness as law.

If a law is really good idea, fair, just and useful, but it's unconstitutional, then there is a simple remedy: amend the constitution. But that is the ONLY legal way to create and enforce such a law in the US.

Edit: on a less serious note, the thread title reminds me of "the goggles do nothing".

 

[D'rok]

If it's a good idea, fair, just and useful, that is a secondary concern to if it's in the constitution?

Laws change all the time, that which is legal changes on occasion.

I really think that this is a uniquely American point of view.

I think you're still missing a major point - namely that the constitution is way more flexible than you seem to think it is. It can and does adapt to changing times and values. It gets interpreted and re-interpreted to reflect those changes.

You may have noticed a lot of hullabaloo in the US around election time about "activist judges". That's code for "judges who interpret the constitution in a way that I don't like". The point being, the constitution is a framework that gets fleshed out by the courts. It lives and breathes with the times.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

If it's a good idea, fair, just and useful, that is a secondary concern to if it's in the constitution?

These are not necessarily secondary to the constitutional concern, but the constitutional concern adds an additional level of hurdle for laws that would contradict. The US Constitution is basically at the top of the heirarchy of US laws, the Supreme Law of the Land if you will. If a new law would run afoul of the Constitution that means the Constitution must be changed to bring such a law into effect. The Constitution is intended to be changable but more static than other laws. Hence it requires two sets of supermajorities, Congress and the States, to change. Or to change the opinion of the standing judiciary. It can be changed but it is considered a bad idea to put too much specific in there. For instance, guidelines for punishment of crimes is not something you expect to see in there. Instead you tend to see more meta-legal concerns. Such as protection of liberties, constraints on government powers. The specifics in the constitution tend to deal with the actual construction of the US government. Two senators per state. That sort of thing.

Laws change all the time, that which is legal changes on occasion.

Yes, the US Constitution prevents neither of these things. What it does is put a more strict hurdle for major changes of the fundamental nature of the US government. For example, a Federal law stating Muslim religious buildings could not be built within 2 miles of historical sites would be unconstitutional by current interpetations, and likely the interpetations at any point in US history. This is a fundamentally different law than has been practiced by the US Federal government. However Japanese internment laws managed to pass muster for a very brief period despite having the same hurdles. The Constitution is not a perfect defense against bad law but it does help mitigate their passing by ensuring legal professionals (Judges) have a hand in passing laws. Mostly, they just look for contradictions against the basic framework and send it back. If the professionals cannot be convinced the Constitution itself has to be changed.

I really think that this is a uniquely American point of view.

You are sort of mis representing the view. Yes, there are some who treat the constitution as a sacred document that cannot be changed, should have never been changed, ect ect ect. The general view is that laws should not contradict the basic framework of our government. The US Constitution is that basic framework. You seem to be thinking that because the Consitution changes slowly and irregularly that our laws do not. They do. The part you seem to be against is the concept of a basic framework that is more difficult to change than simple majority laws. This is basically a system for organizing laws into a heirarchy. Why is this bad? Why should all laws be equally important?

 

[BeAChooser]

Why are you guys in the US so hung up on 'Is it constitutional?' when 'Is it a good idea?' seems like a much better question to ask?

Perhaps because many of us think the Framers were very wise men who thought long and hard on what is a good idea and then codified their conclusions in the Constitution? Because we recognize it's a document that in 200 years transformed not only the US but the world. And because many of us feel we are making a big mistake ignoring the wisdom and safeguards that the Constitution embodied. And that ignoring that wisdom is one of the reasons we now find ourselves in increasingly dire straits.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Perhaps because many of us think the Framers were very wise men who thought long and hard on what is a good idea and then codified their conclusions in the Constitution? Because we recognize it's a document that in 200 years transformed not only the US but the world. And because many of us feel we are making a big mistake ignoring the wisdom and safeguards that the Constitution embodied. And that ignoring that wisdom is one of the reasons we now find ourselves in increasingly dire straits.

I much prefer the wisdom of the current incarnation over the original. For one thing, slavery is no longer acceptable. Another, I find the concept of the second runner up becoming Vice-President to be contrary to what the office entails. Most of the stuff in the original document I agree with. Personally I would like to see more explicit gender protection in the document. I would also like one of the Congresses to become PR. One of the very parcels of wisdom in the original document and of the Founding Fathers is that the Constitution can and should change with the times. Certainly a piece of wisdom I hold dear.

 

[3point14]

<Snipped>

You are sort of mis representing the view. Yes, there are some who treat the constitution as a sacred document that cannot be changed, should have never been changed, ect ect ect. The general view is that laws should not contradict the basic framework of our government. The US Constitution is that basic framework. You seem to be thinking that because the Consitution changes slowly and irregularly that our laws do not. They do. The part you seem to be against is the concept of a basic framework that is more difficult to change than simple majority laws. This is basically a system for organizing laws into a heirarchy. Why is this bad? Why should all laws be equally important?

Thank you.

I am beginning to appreciate that t is not the straight-jacket I perceived it to be, thanks for this and to others who have taken the time to answer what was a straight question (and I realise that perhaps I chose a slightly unwise title for the thread).

I am also, I think, in danger of mixing up those of you who take the time and trouble to educate me on something I am interested in, and those who simply respond with 'you don't understand the law' or 'your country has one too', or 'the founding fathers were so wise we don't question them ' (thanks, BAC, for that timely intervention) or (my personal favourite) a complete tangent about the problems that exist with the system under which I live, which, incidentally, seemed to suggest that I had something to do with it, and therefore wasn't allowed to ask the question I was asking. These are the people that confuse me.

 

[BeAChooser]

I much prefer the wisdom of the current incarnation over the original. For one thing, slavery is no longer acceptable. Another, I find the concept of the second runner up becoming Vice-President to be contrary to what the office entails.

But those were changes enacted by explicitly altering the Constitution using means laid out by the Framers themselves. Sure, times do change but what concerns many of us now are the *interpretations* being made outside that framework by bureaucrats and distinctly partisan hacks ... to such an extent that government now thinks it has the right to tell a restaurant how much salt it can serve (just to mention one of thousands of current examples) and regulate "mental activity" (did you see the tortured argument of the most recent liberal judge used to defense of Obamacare?).

One of the very parcels of wisdom in the original document and of the Founding Fathers is that the Constitution can and should change with the times.

True, and they provided a means to change it. So use it. Don't just do things to circumvent it. Like allowing Presidents to appoint powerful czars who are neither confirmed or subject to oversight by Congress as the Framers intended they be in the Constitution.

 

[I Am The Scum]

My circular friend, I find it peculiar that you continually frame the question as, if a proposed bill is good, why should we concern ourselves over it's constitutional status? That's a fair question. One could argue that if our legislators only made good decisions, then it would follow that a constitution would serve only to limit their capabilities, and thus, be a bad thing. However, that's not the world we live in. Our legislators can, and often do, come up with really bad ideas.

Several times throughout America's history, we have had a single political party in control of the presidency, senate, and house. Suppose that during one of these times, the party in question decided that things sure would be better if they didn't have to bother with any upcoming elections or dissenting opinions. So they write and pass a law stating that all opposing politicians are barred from government service, and that there will be no more elections ever again. Without a constitution, there is nothing to say that this action is off-limits. Further, if a great deal of people dissent, then what are there options? We obviously can't vote them out of office, because there's no more voting. We can't claim that the law is illegal, because there is no framework that the new law opposes. Essentially, our only option is violent overthrow. Personally, I'd prefer other options being available.

 

[truethat]

Perhaps because many of us think the Framers were very wise men who thought long and hard on what is a good idea and then codified their conclusions in the Constitution? Because we recognize it's a document that in 200 years transformed not only the US but the world. And because many of us feel we are making a big mistake ignoring the wisdom and safeguards that the Constitution embodied. And that ignoring that wisdom is one of the reasons we now find ourselves in increasingly dire straits.

well said.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's my point. It was written in 1787 (or ratified then, or whatever). The world has changed a lot since then. 27 amendments in nearly 250 years? Isn't it struggling to keep pace with modern life yet?

No.

The change process is deliberately difficult, to make sure good ideas are what percolate up. Even so, Prohibition percolated up. Dumb ****** idea.

By the way, most of what runs our lives is legislation and rules. There are a crap load of them, struggling to keep up with last week.

Your lack of understanding is remarkable, but someone up there made a good point. There is a nation that does well enough without a written constitution.

The United Kingdom.

 

[3point14]

Your lack of understanding is remarkable,

Have I just been insulted?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Have I just been insulted?

No, I don't think you understood, when you opened the thread, what the point of a constitution is.

I hope you now do.

I just thought it remarkable to not first look up, in any text book, or online information site, what a constitution is supposed to do for it's nation, or state, before deciding that a given constitution must be unhelpful.

I find that remarkable, so I remarked upon it. I do hope, and it appears, that the responses to your query have been helpful.

 

[3point14]

No, I don't think you understood, when you opened the thread, what the point of a constitution is.

I hope you now do.

I just thought it remarkable to not first look up, in any text book, or online information site, what a constitution is supposed to do for it's nation, or state, before deciding that a given constitution must be unhelpful.

I find that remarkable, so I remarked upon it. I do hope, and it appears, that the responses to your query have been helpful.

I'll admit to laziness. I'm not sure that's remarkable though.

Oh, and this is much more fun.

Plus, look at what else I've learned!

 

[deepatrax]

What I want to know is why does the UK's Prime Minister have to get approval from the Queen!?

A QUEEN!!

what century is this!?

 

[3point14]

What I want to know is why does the UK's Prime Minister have to get approval from the Queen!?

A QUEEN!!

what century is this!?

Indeed. Personally I think the French had the right idea there, but I suspect these days it might be more prudent to retire them all off and elect a president, but that would be a topic for a different thread.

 

[deepatrax]

Indeed. Personally I think the French had the right idea there, but I suspect these days it might be more prudent to retire them all off and elect a president, but that would be a topic for a different thread.

Nah...I won't start another thread on it.

it was more along the lines of, "Wait...your country has a Queen...a Royal Family. Your Prime Minister must get the Queen's approval. You people literally BOW to a Queen...and you're criticizing our government in the U.S.!?"

don't worry about it. you don't have to defend it.

 

[3point14]

Nah...I won't start another thread on it.

it was more along the lines of, "Wait...your country has a Queen...a Royal Family. Your Prime Minister must get the Queen's approval. You people literally BOW to a Queen...and you're criticizing our government in the U.S.!?"

don't worry about it. you don't have to defend it.

No, you're right. I don't.

And I really don't see that I'm criticising it? I'm not. I hope I'm not. If it comes across that way, I apologise. I'm exploring it. I'm being disabused of some half formed notions that weren't really that strongly held and I'm gaining new ideas about the way the world is.

I'm gaining insight into a democratic system that I don't know a lot about but has, as I suspect you'll agree, a fairly large effect on my life. When the US sneezes, the world catches cold - It has been for years the worlds only superpower. (maybe China too now, I don't know) I want to know how it's run. I will admit, I could read this, but I'm lazy and this is an interactive experience. Wikepedia and all it's pitfalls can't live up to this, can it? (go on, admit it, you know it can't) There are some really smart, educated people here who (you know this is true) like to flex their educational and intellectual muscles. I'm very happy to read that and be educated.

 

[truethat]

No, you're right. I don't.

And I really don't see that I'm criticising it? I'm not. I hope I'm not. If it comes across that way, I apologise. I'm exploring it. I'm being disabused of some half formed notions that weren't really that strongly held and I'm gaining new ideas about the way the world is.

I'm gaining insight into a democratic system that I don't know a lot about but has, as I suspect you'll agree, a fairly large effect on my life. When the US sneezes, the world catches cold - It has been for years the worlds only superpower. (maybe China too now, I don't know) I want to know how it's run. I will admit, I could read this, but I'm lazy and this is an interactive experience. Wikepedia and all it's pitfalls can't live up to this, can it? (go on, admit it, you know it can't) There are some really smart, educated people here who (you know this is true) like to flex their educational and intellectual muscles. I'm very happy to read that and be educated.

I didn't take it that you were criticizing, more that you were seeking to understand which is pretty cool.

But don't forget the Constitution part is not based on a democratic system!

 

[brodski]

Nah...I won't start another thread on it.

it was more along the lines of, "Wait...your country has a Queen...a Royal Family. Your Prime Minister must get the Queen's approval. You people literally BOW to a Queen...and you're criticizing our government in the U.S.!?"

don't worry about it. you don't have to defend it.

That displays almost as great a misunderstanding of the UK constitutional settlement as the OP displays of the US system.

 

[D'rok]

Because we recognize it's a document that in 200 years transformed not only the US but the world.

I realize who the poster is here, but still...

Terminal myopia + ignorant arrogance = good times!