The constitution

rohirrim TR · 09-12-2005, 02:48 PM

I just got asked by an on campus newspaper what does the constitution mean to you? it is a vague question i realize, (and i hope the obscure paper realizes it too

) but i digress. My answer to that question was that it was one of the founding documents of the united states and IMO should be the foundation of law when it came to courts making decisions (i.e..the supreme court)

what does it mean to the rest of you?

brownjenkins · 09-12-2005, 02:56 PM

i think it's an incredible document for it's time... the work of some of the greatest minds of their time on the best way to govern a country with a very diverse population and diverse interests

that said, its ultimate power is in its flexibility and ability to be changed (though it takes a lot of consensus to make that change)... it should not be seen as an almost "biblical" piece of paper that is the end-all system of the United States (which is how it is seen by some)

and btw, the power of the supreme courts to decide whether or not any given law complies with constitional law stems from the constitution itself... congress passes laws, the supreme court assures they fit the constitutional framework... and if the congress does not like the answer, they have the power to ammend the constitution... it's all in the system

rohirrim TR · 09-12-2005, 03:04 PM

I totally agree with you.

rohirrim TR · 10-10-2005, 12:29 PM

brownjenkins made me think of something, he said jokingly "the constitution is evlolving" but should it,
should it be a living document or should it be set in stone? and how much power should the supreme court be given?

brownjenkins · 10-10-2005, 03:09 PM

it should be evolving, just difficult to change... as the many amendments show... the founding fathers came up with some good ideas, but times change and situations arise that were unforeseen

rohirrim TR · 10-10-2005, 03:11 PM

yeah, i agree, the system works, the supreme court should balance congress and vice versa, the key to keeping america a democratic republic is keeping governement limited

Count Comfect · 10-10-2005, 03:40 PM

It's very interesting when/if you look at the early history of the Constitution. Things like how little power the judiciary actually had. Judicial review of Congress was only attempted twice in the first 70 years of the Constitution.

rohirrim TR · 10-10-2005, 04:57 PM

yeah, when the first congress started they no real power to speak of and their money was worthless (not worth a continental)

yet now it has gone to the other extreme and were fighting big government and excessive pork bills in congress, its weird how you can see the historical progression

Curubethion · 10-11-2005, 08:46 PM

Which, I think, illustrates the point that it should only evolve so far. After all, what good is it if it evolves into a tyrannical document?

rohirrim TR · 10-11-2005, 10:07 PM

what do you mean "tyrannical" ?

Curubethion · 10-11-2005, 10:12 PM

If it gives all power to a central authority...possibly even a tyranny of the people could occur if we don't watch it.

rohirrim TR · 10-11-2005, 10:17 PM

well I guess it could happen, but the way our system is designed it is unlikely, the three branches of government each have the power to limit each other, and thats what keeps us from having a tyranny

The Gaffer · 10-12-2005, 03:24 AM

Yes, that and the federal system which devolves much power to the States.

As an "outsider", the US Constitution stands as an eloquent expression of liberty and one of the greatest documents in human history. I wish we had one.

I recently visited Runymede, where the Magna Carta was signed (the nearest English equivalent, I guess). It was interesting that there was bugger all memorials etc except one which was built by a group of Americans, in recognition of how that document inspired the Founding Fathers.

It's also interesting that it's one of the most liberal constitutional documents anywhere, yet the US is a conservative country. Whereas, the UK has no constitution at all and is (comparatively) liberal.

Count Comfect · 10-12-2005, 01:57 PM

That's partly because once you write things down there is an inherent tug of conservatism - "sticking to the letter of the text" - that can impede liberal movements, whereas if nothing's written down, it is more mutable.

That's not all of it, but it is part of it.

09-12-2005, 02:56 PM	#2
brownjenkins Advocatus Diaboli Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Reality Posts: 3,767	i think it's an incredible document for it's time... the work of some of the greatest minds of their time on the best way to govern a country with a very diverse population and diverse interests that said, its ultimate power is in its flexibility and ability to be changed (though it takes a lot of consensus to make that change)... it should not be seen as an almost "biblical" piece of paper that is the end-all system of the United States (which is how it is seen by some) and btw, the power of the supreme courts to decide whether or not any given law complies with constitional law stems from the constitution itself... congress passes laws, the supreme court assures they fit the constitutional framework... and if the congress does not like the answer, they have the power to ammend the constitution... it's all in the system __________________ Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.

10-10-2005, 03:09 PM	#5
brownjenkins Advocatus Diaboli Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Reality Posts: 3,767	it should be evolving, just difficult to change... as the many amendments show... the founding fathers came up with some good ideas, but times change and situations arise that were unforeseen __________________ Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.

10-10-2005, 03:40 PM	#7
Count Comfect Word Santa Claus Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 2,922	It's very interesting when/if you look at the early history of the Constitution. Things like how little power the judiciary actually had. Judicial review of Congress was only attempted twice in the first 70 years of the Constitution. __________________ Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall.

10-11-2005, 08:46 PM	#9
Curubethion Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: College! Posts: 1,976	Which, I think, illustrates the point that it should only evolve so far. After all, what good is it if it evolves into a tyrannical document? __________________ Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan)

10-11-2005, 10:12 PM	#11
Curubethion Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: College! Posts: 1,976	If it gives all power to a central authority...possibly even a tyranny of the people could occur if we don't watch it. __________________ Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan)

10-12-2005, 03:24 AM	#13
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Yes, that and the federal system which devolves much power to the States. As an "outsider", the US Constitution stands as an eloquent expression of liberty and one of the greatest documents in human history. I wish we had one. I recently visited Runymede, where the Magna Carta was signed (the nearest English equivalent, I guess). It was interesting that there was bugger all memorials etc except one which was built by a group of Americans, in recognition of how that document inspired the Founding Fathers. It's also interesting that it's one of the most liberal constitutional documents anywhere, yet the US is a conservative country. Whereas, the UK has no constitution at all and is (comparatively) liberal.

10-12-2005, 01:57 PM	#14
Count Comfect Word Santa Claus Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 2,922	That's partly because once you write things down there is an inherent tug of conservatism - "sticking to the letter of the text" - that can impede liberal movements, whereas if nothing's written down, it is more mutable. That's not all of it, but it is part of it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
EU Constitution	The Gaffer	General Messages	23	06-25-2004 07:28 AM
Constitution day!	Artanis	General Messages	62	05-18-2004 10:28 AM
Al qaeda: what they want....	Ruinel	General Messages	79	04-27-2004 10:29 AM
Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread	Rían	General Messages	2289	01-08-2004 02:31 AM
Bush's Security on visit to Buckingham Palace	Radagast	General Messages	239	12-10-2003 12:57 PM