About the constitution

[Secular humanist]

As a newcomer I could not help but to realize that some members have... how would I put it... obsession with the constitution. Really, explain me this. If you so love the constitution, what do you do when it is changed? Change your oppinions? I doubt! All laws can be changed, and terefore no law is absolute.

Why this bothers me is because so many people back their claims with the constitution. The problem is that most of the discussion here is "what sould be the law", and out come these people who blindly refer to the constitution: "But this is how the law currently is!" There is a fallacy of circular logic there, since the laws are nothing but dominating social norms that are enforced by the state, and these people choose their social norms based on what social norms the state enforces. If this is not the "how to"-of eliminating logic, then nothing is.

The very purpose of discussing politics escapes people who back their claims with the constitution. The purpose of discussing politics is to choose what norms to enforce in society. But then we have these dudes who think discussing politics is all about obeying previously sanctioned norms. This is ofcourse counter productive, because this would stall the progress of the state while the rest of society moves on, all ending up in big conflicts inside that said state.

To put it simply, stop riding with the constitution. The job of discussing politics is not to obey the rules, but to make them.

[Verily]

Of course. Argumentum ad constitutio is one of the great fallacies of American politics generally: "It is this way, therefore it should be this way."

That is not to say that the Constitution does not have good points. But arguing that something is correct, or the right decision, simply because it is in the Constitution is absurd.

We must also be careful to distinguish between legal arguments, which must follow the reasoning of the Constitution and laws, and legislative arguments, which need not.

I think this phenomenon is also relatively rare on the forum compared to real life. Of course, in real life people often argue about the Constitution while having little idea what's actually in it, while here people generally know what they're talking about. But the average person on the street is much more likely to devolve into argumentum ad constitutio.

[A18]

As a newcomer I could not help but to realize that some members have... how would I put it... obsession with the constitution.

Names?

[Scam of God]

As a newcomer I could not help but to realize that some members have... how would I put it... obsession with the constitution.

Names?

Most American politicians, when they aren't hiding behind the flag, cower instead behind the Constitution and the "Founding Fathers" by proxy, and use it to justify whatever position they want.

I appreciate the attitude that Europeans take towards their constitutions: far from seeing it as a grand declaration of a national metaphysics or State religion, they mostly regard it merely as being a binding set of ordered laws that can be changed whenever the nation outgrows it. Perhaps this stems from the lack of stability (until historically recently) that most European countries experienced - it does little good to formulate a Constitution in 1850 "for all time" when by 1950 your nation has been conquered thrice over (we could use a little of that upheaval ourselves). And while I appreciate our Constitution for its strong protection of individual liberty, most of it is woefully outdated, even anachronistic. I would fully support a Constitutional convention to scrap it to the core and recreate it from scratch for the Third Millennium.

[Jacobtm]

I think that alot of the reverence for our constitution comes from the fact that it has provided us with a system that--while far from perfect--has led us through more than 200 years of history under the same *general* system. There aren't many other countries which have existed from the late 1700's into the current day without radical overhauls of their government, but we have. That, to me, says something about our *relatively* set Constitution compared with the more flexible constitutions/basic laws of other countries.

The fact that the Supreme Court could've overturned so many aspects of the New Deal, or that Richard Nixon was forced to resign because he would've been removed from office by Congress, shows to me that our division of powers has to a large degree held up better than that of most any other country over the time-period of our existence.

[Lief 🗽]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

[Mechaman]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

It is completely legal to change the Constitution, it's called an "Amendment".

[A18]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why?

Because they approve of it, and disapprove of flagrantly violating it. And your post contains no argument against that sentiment.

[Lief 🗽]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why?

Because they approve of it, and disapprove of flagrantly violating it. And your post contains no argument against that sentiment.

If they approve of it, they can argue why they do, rather than opposing something simply because it's "not what the founders wanted."

[Vepres]

The constitution is a fantastic document. It has produced the single continuous system of government of any existing government. Governments tend to be fragile things, especially democracies and republics.

The genius is it combines the one man one vote principles of ancient Athens with the strong organization and separation of powers of the Roman Republic with some federalism thrown in there. Essentially it takes the best elements of confederations, republics, and democracies.

Not that it's perfect, but it hasn't failed us yet.

[A18]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why?

Because they approve of it, and disapprove of flagrantly violating it. And your post contains no argument against that sentiment.

If they approve of it, they can argue why they do, rather than opposing something simply because it's "not what the founders wanted."

I agree that they shouldn't oppose something on that ground. But invoking the Constitution and/or Founders needn't be motivated by that sort of prejudice.

[jokerman]

Well this goes down the heart of jurisprudence.  The reason that the constitution is held in a special position vis a vis normal statute is that it bears the same relationship to it that statute bears to individual action.  Just as laws limit the actions of individuals, the constitution limits the collective action of the body politic (or at the very least, as James Madison said, ensures that it is "the reason, alone, of the public, that controls and regulates the government.").

The kind of moral faith in the constitution described in the beginning of the thread is derived from this original idea.  It may be a blind "obsession," but it also a sign that a body politic is in working form.  Many other attempts at democracy have lacked this sort of reverence for a sacred constitution, and it has usually been the ultimate cause of their downfall.

Not that I'm suggesting its quite possible to create such a working form ad hoc out of history.  America in 1789 was far advanced down a line of Anglo cultural evolution.

And even for us the perfection of this form has a natural lifespan.  Whether it's because Americans lose their faith in the constitutional form or history makes the form obsolete (and of course both of these reciprocally reinforce each other), it will probably eventually fade away.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's really just a cargo-cult version of the usual liberal emphasis on rights and liberty.

[k-onmmunist]

'On Liberty' by J.S. Mill should be the constitution of every country.

[Marokai Backbeat]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

I don't have anything really to add, and I feel a bit bad about posting something without substance like this, but I just felt compelled to say this is one of my favorite posts in all my time on Atlas.

[k-onmmunist]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

I don't have anything really to add, and I feel a bit bad about posting something without substance like this, but I just felt compelled to say this is one of my favorite posts in all my time on Atlas.

You need basic rights if you're going to have a state, simply because otherwise, the government will walk all over them. A history of UK censorship legislation since 1997 should tell you that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

I don't have anything really to add, and I feel a bit bad about posting something without substance like this, but I just felt compelled to say this is one of my favorite posts in all my time on Atlas.

You need basic rights if you're going to have a state, simply because otherwise, the government will walk all over them. A history of UK censorship legislation since 1997 should tell you that.

     I agree with you, but Lief's point is that some people are basically arguing that something is good because the Constitution says it. It being in the Constitution is not a reason that freedom of speech is good, but the integral part it plays in an open, healthy discourse is.

[Free Palestine]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

These people are not obsessed with the founding fathers like how a pale basement-dwelling teenager obsesses with Paris Hilton.  They believe that the Founding Fathers created the ideal system of government, and believe that it should be kept according to their intent.  It is not solely because it's "what the Founders wanted."  To suggest that is to suggest that anyone who believes in pure Constitutional principals is of a lower plane of intelligence.

And as for the original post, nobody is obsessed with the Constitution.  Some people just think that the Constitution sets out the ideal form of government, which should be kept that way.

[Associate Justice PiT]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

These people are not obsessed with the founding fathers like how a pale basement-dwelling teenager obsesses with Paris Hilton.  They believe that the Founding Fathers created the ideal system of government, and believe that it should be kept according to their intent.  It is not solely because it's "what the Founders wanted."  To suggest that is to suggest that anyone who believes in pure Constitutional principals is of a lower plane of intelligence.

And as for the original post, nobody is obsessed with the Constitution.  Some people just think that the Constitution sets out the ideal form of government, which should be kept that way.

     If they want to keep it that way, they should be able to articulate why the Constitution is the "ideal form of government".

[Хahar 🤔]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

These people are not obsessed with the founding fathers like how a pale basement-dwelling teenager obsesses with Paris Hilton.  They believe that the Founding Fathers created the ideal system of government, and believe that it should be kept according to their intent.  It is not solely because it's "what the Founders wanted."  To suggest that is to suggest that anyone who believes in pure Constitutional principals is of a lower plane of intelligence.

And as for the original post, nobody is obsessed with the Constitution.  Some people just think that the Constitution sets out the ideal form of government, which should be kept that way.

Why aren't they obsessed in that way? You're not substantiating your arguments.

[Associate Justice PiT]

One of the absolute worst facets of American political debate is the hagiography of the founding fathers and their constitution. For instance, those idiot teabaggers, crying about how they want their constitution back and how the country should be like what the founders intended. Why? It's the worst, most intellectually vacant argument for or against policy. So much of the constitution is no longer relevant today, but politicians and other Americans still resist changing it because it's "what the founders wanted." It's maddening.

These people are not obsessed with the founding fathers like how a pale basement-dwelling teenager obsesses with Paris Hilton.  They believe that the Founding Fathers created the ideal system of government, and believe that it should be kept according to their intent.  It is not solely because it's "what the Founders wanted."  To suggest that is to suggest that anyone who believes in pure Constitutional principals is of a lower plane of intelligence.

And as for the original post, nobody is obsessed with the Constitution.  Some people just think that the Constitution sets out the ideal form of government, which should be kept that way.

Why aren't they obsessed in that way? You're not substantiating your arguments.

     Indeed. It's one thing to hold a conviction & it's another to try to convince other people of it.