Nevertheless, it has worked quite well for several centuries so far, and the way things are looking over there it will easily outlast the viability of your bit of paper, that keeps the American political system imprisoned in the 18th century, and makes a 21st century superpower essentially ungovernable.
Cite? Most British Historians would disagree with you. There is a Mexican stand off involved- Parliament tries to alter the constitution- PM goes to the Monarch and dissolves Parliament. Election (not penis) ensues. PM tries to alter constitution- Parliament removes him/her.
I see Obama’s over statement (mis-statement) as part of the National delusion that only things American are valued and that everyone else is lesser.
Undoubtedly the US Constitution is the oldest written modern constitution still in action, but as you say it causes grief to the body politic in many of its archaic formulations.
Not every country feels the need to pore over every line of a centuries old document in order to inform current debates. Your constitution, and subsequent amendments, are fine - ground-breaking - documents, but that’s not the only way to organise things.
Sure. You have deeply rooted traditions and a long history of Common Law that, after the fact, works effectively in many, perhaps most, ways like a written constitution.
Whether your form of government is better than ours is a different debate. But, frankly, I think when you get to the level of either of our countries, you’re talking more about differences than things that are better or worse.
America is not a Constitutional Democracy. It’s a Constitutional Republic. There’s a very big and important difference between a republic and a democracy.
Charles I?
What’s the deal with Cromwell being such an ass that you guys called Charles II back, exhumed and hanged the body of the Judge, I believe, that sentenced his Daddy from a bridge or arch so that Charles II could see it and, I presume, know that Most Was Forgiven?
We still are, just not one that is producing very good results.
The key defining characteristic of a republic, as opposed to a democracy, is that instead of the people voting directly on matters of policy, we elect representatives to decide policy on our behalf.
That is what is still happening, though our representatives are, by and large, doing a rather poor job of representing the will of their constituents.
Nobody on this thread, granted, and not that much on the boards really, so apologies. In the slightly wider world, there seems to be a lot of arguing about what a “militia” is.
Meh. The definition of a word is what people think it is, not what you think it is. But even if we consult the dictionary, we find that Obama’s use of the term is perfectly OK:
Words don’t need to retain the definition of the original roots derived from other languages.
It might be helpful if we had a link to Obama’s direct wording, I tried to find a transcript of recent speeches but don’t see the line. With wording like that even the slightest transcription error and you’re misrepresenting what Obama actually said.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting subject, I gave an opinion on this matter before in a pretty good thread on the topic:
I think that you are being over persnickety on the definitions of both democracy and republic. It is perfectly accurate to say the US is a representative democracy. Elected representatives are based on population in all jurisdictions, the only exception is that the US Senate is a democracy of states, not people, with equal representation of each member state.
I’m generally very skeptical of the credentials of anyone who spouts the crapulous line that the US isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic. They don’t really understand either and seem to be anti-democratic in their general outlook on politics and more oligarchic and/or aristocratic.
The US is both a democracy and a republic. The People’s Republic of China is a republic, but not a democracy.
Agreed, it reminds me of one of my friend’s parents when I was a kid flipping out after seeing Margaret Thatcher refer to the UK as “a democracy”. She then started saying, “What is she talking about!? It’s a Constitutional monarchy!”
Of course a country can be a democracy and a monarchy, a monarchy but not a democracy, a republic but not a democracy, and a democracy and a republic.
