Incidentally for clarity -
Uncodified constitutions do exist in these countries and are formed by various Acts of Parliament, precedent, custom, and usage. This makes the constitutional rules adaptable and resilient. They evolve with time as society changes. Generally changes are by simple majority.
But if I wanted that I’d move to Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Israel, etc. I don’t really care that other countries do it differently…it would be chaos in the US if a simple majority could overturn the Constitution. Good grief, think about that in the context of Bush’s first term if nothing else. :eek:
Canada has an entrenched Constitution which can be very difficult to amend (the biggest stuff requires unanimous consent of the provincial legislatures).
The inflexibility that you seem to be trying to resolve is as much an attitude problem as a procedural one. People feel the thing is revealed scripture, and how dare mere mortals such as ourselves attempt to adapt that to today’s conditions.
States have no interests other than those of their residents. We’re hearing about this now for one reason. Republicans have gerrymandered state legislative districts. They’ve gerrymandered Congressional districts. But they can not gerrymander entire states. Attempts to repeal the amendment allowing direct election of U.S. Senators are an attempt to circumvent that little reality and all the flowery rationales presented in furtherance of that effort are merely that, flowery rationales and, as such, are unworthy of the logical refutation reserved for serious arguments.
So if the Ambassador to the United Nations from Some Country has a baby in New York City the baby should automatically be a US citizen?
That’s the way it works. Doesn’t mean the kid will ever demand to be recognized as a citizen. He may not even be told he/she has U.S. citizenship.
I’m not very fond of the 16th and think we need some stronger about keeping religion out of government in all ways because that is clearly not working all that well.
And I don’t understand why the Child Labor and Equal Rights Amendments haven’t been ratified, but I’m fine with the process whereby the constitution is changed. It’s not something you want changed on a simple whim of the majority, it’s something that should resist change and take a lot of effort and obvious, overwhelming need before it is changed. Like repealing the 2nd.
You’ve made an excellent argument for the continuation of our kind of constitution. I don’t want to risk having my rights taken away by the passing whim of the members of Congress.
The problem is that an unwritten constitution is meaningless. The whole point of the US constitution and the state constitutions are that they put limits on what the government can do and what actions the government can take. The reason it is so hard to amend is that it can only be changed when a large majority of the country agrees that it needs to change rather than a quick majority taking action when something is popular.
A prime example is the recent #brexit vote. Where by a simple majority vote 51% of the country is dragging the other 49% out of the EU. Similarly the recent Scottish independence vote. Should a union of over 300 years be decided by a simple majority vote? No, both of these represent massive changes to their societies and should not be undertaken unless a strong majority of the people agree with the change.
This is one way that we ensure that we are not children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of popular thought, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
But you see that’s not how the constitution is written. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment says
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine. The idea was that people who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, such as diplomats and their children who were subject to any foreign power would not be granted such.
Children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not U.S. citizens:
Green Card for a Person Born in the United States to a Foreign Diplomat:
They can get a “Green Card”, but they aren’t citizens.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have already been effectively repealed. Else we would have no Department of Education or Department of Energy. Or Internal Revenue Service, none of which are authorized to exist by the Constitution.
Also, the First Amendment must go. Since the Second Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading muskets and not fully-automatic assault rifles, it naturally follows that Freedom of the Press only applies to Benjamin-Franklin-style hand-cranked printing presses, not radio, television, or internet news feeds.
The 9th Amendment never had much effect. It’s a lot less profound than people make it out to be.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Why? Almost nobody else does it like that. The US, Pakistan, and a bunch of South American countries. That’s it. The UK doesn’t. France doesn’t. Spain doesn’t.
You could probably manage without the Third, which hasn’t attracted much litigation in the last two hundred + years.
Alas, I think this case should have been important.
I don’t know about the other two but Canada has had a written constitution since (IIRC) 1981. Before that there was the British North America Act that played the same function and could be amended only by the British parliament. Indeed they had to accept the Canadian constitution, an act that separated Canada definitely from British control (although in practice that was long since gone). The Canadian constitution is effectvely unamendable since Quebec would have to agree to any change and they haven’t accepted that there is a consitution.
I don’t think repealing the 2nd amendment would have much effect, since it is not the 2nd that prevents congress from banning assault weapons, for example.
The BNA Act was indeed a written constitution, setting out the basic structure of the country, creating the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, assigning their legislative powers, and outlining the structure of the judiciary. It could not be amended by ordinary statute in Canada; only by a statute passed by the Imperial Parliament, so it certainly qualified as an entrenched written constitution.
It is still in force as the foundation of the Constitution, renamed the Constitution Act, 1867. It’s why there were fireworks and a day off yesterday. 
Some parts of the Constitution are difficult to amend, others less so, depending on the provision in question. The most fundamental ones, such as constitutional monarchy, provincial representation in the Commons, the composition of the Supreme Court and bilingualism require unanimity; less rigourous requirements apply to other provisions.
But Quebec is willing to consider amendments. The National Assembly passed the Meech Lake accord, for instance, but the Accord failed because it wasn’t passed by Manitoba and Newfoundland. Another amendment passed by Quebec and the federal government jointly amended the education section by adding a new s 93A, eliminating constitutional protection for publicly funded religious schools in Quebec.