Or as effective as a wall made of paper can be against tyranny.
“Written laws are like spiders’ webs, and will like them only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them.”
– Anacharsis
So it is here. The American constitution is based on checks and balances which make it harder to get things done. It has succeeded insofar as the USA has no national system of healthcare and the other things civilised nations normally regard as the rights of a citizen. Getting things done that might benefit the citizen is hard and so doesn’t normally get done.
On the other hand the aim of preventing tyranny has woefully failed. Freedom of speech is curtailed into “free speech zones”; stop and frisk, no-knock warrants and airport security, along with the NSA, have completely destroyed the fourth amendment rights; torture and immunity agreements have abridged the right to remain silent; in short the constitution as a defence against the infringement of liberty has been an utter failure, when compared to the UK which is the closest political relative to America without a written constitution.
My position, therefore, is that written constitutions are contrary to the public good and unable to defend freedom.
Free speech zones only affect where people can assemble in public places. I suppose if one wants to be pretty loose with the definition of ‘curtail’ it matches, but you do realize that most (if not all) non-American democracies also ‘curtail’ free speech in one way or another, right?
As for us not having a national health care system and this somehow making us uncivilized, well…
Leaving aside the inherently void contention that the US Constitution has failed to prevent tyranny (and the similarly illogical assumption that we live in a tyranny)…
You’re taking one written constitution, over two hundred years old and the first of its kind, and extrapolating that to all written constitutions.
That is to say, this position is in no way supported by the rest of your OP. Nor, indeed, by fact.
Gee, was your first clue that those coining the phrase ‘all men are created equal’, were, at the time themselves trading in human beings? 'Cause that’s a pretty big ‘tell’, right there.
Once again, criticism against the Constitution rests on the fact that the principles of the Constitution are being violated.
“What!? Stop-and-frisk? That’s so Unconstitutional! Down with the Constitution!”
As for your first complaint, I’m not for tearing up our rule of law to suit your agenda that we must have single-payer healthcare. If you don’t realize that this can be achieved perfectly well through the current system, but that for lack of will it will not be achieved, then you are akin to a baby crying 'cause he didn’t get his lollipop.
Most written constitutions are nice and easy to get rid of. When Chavez wanted to change the Venezuelan constitution it just took a referendum, and the French went through a period where they had a new one every few years. Obviously, like cancer, the easier a constitution is to get rid of the less damage it does.
It has been asked of you to propose an alternative; do you propose the US abandon a written constitution and simply rely on convention and ordinary legislation, like the UK?
Apparently it’s better if it can simply be easily and arbitrarily changed, that this is the path to true stability, peace and harmony, with a distinct lack of tyranny, and we can clearly see that in the examples of Venezuelan and France…
No, this isn’t a joke,it’s a serious and thought provoking assertion that deserves debate!
Stop laughing over there…I mean it!
Ok, you, in the back…you are going to strain your eyes if you keep rolling them like that…
On Monday, two members of this board were able to get married because of the provisions and processes laid out in our written constitution. I’m not saying it always works exactly as it should, but I’m finding it a little hard to be O.K. with just throwing it out this week.
You know who got a lot of shit done? The Nazis. So did Stalin.
The whole POINT of a constitutional government based on a system of checks and balances is that it does make it harder to get things done. It is that ability of the branches of government to obstruct each other that prevents any one party from acting unilaterally. Because history has shown that when people in power can act unilaterally, they typically act on their own behalf or of those who will keep them in power.
Keep in mind that for every issue where people think the Constitution may have “failed”, there are significant numbers of people who disagree with the premise of that issue for non-crazy reasons.
Believe it or not, things can get done without government, or the Queens, intervention.
I don’t believe the definition of a civilized nation is one that is subject to the whims of a crowned head.
Stringbean said it best - “*Once again, criticism against the Constitution rests on the fact that the principles of the Constitution are being violated.” *
U.S. citizens have a choice of fighting for the Constitution as it stands, changing the Constitution as is described in the Constitution, or whining that they can’t get their way because the Constitution is standing in their way.
How is it the Constitution’s fault we don’t have national health care? What other rights do we not have, and how is that the fault of the Constitution?
