What’s up with that? I live in Sweden and obviously don’t everything about it but alot of it seems outdated. And yet you don’t change anything because a bunch of guys said it should be like that some 200 years ago and it’s “a constitutal right!” to bear arms etc. Well, society evolves and so should the foundation of it. But I probably got it all wrong, I sure hope so.
What’s up with the Constitution? What kind of question is that? I’m a lawyer who often works with Constitutional law issues, so if you have a specific question, I’d be glad to try to address it. But I’ll be damned if I can find one in your post. And by the way . . . Sweden – what’s up with that?
Ok, to rephrase. You don’t seem to change anything in the document that was signed so long ago. Every right given there seems to be sacred and cant be modified. Is that true? Like the right to bear arms. I’m sure I got it wrong so set me straight.
[Seinfeld] What’s the deal with the constitution? I mean, it’s 200 years old. The paper is all yellow and grimy. Couldn’t they upgarde to Constitution 2.0. Maybe throw in an interactive John Hancock signature. I mean, these laws were made when the flu was the end to existence. Where’s the amendment dealing with cereal? I mean, really, I mean. [/Seinfeld]
Well, it is open to change, Juggler. In theory, at least, it’s a document that has written into it the means of its own alteration (the Amendments).
Now, I agree that many people treat the Constitution as dogma, but the fact remains that if ever US citizens decide as a body to change things, things can be changed.
If it ain’t broke…
The constitution is changed all the time. The last ammendment was ratified around 1997. If people wanted to give up their right to bear arms, the Constitution would be ammended to reflect that. But they don’t, so it’s not. That’s called democracy.
Oh, and since this is the pit, You stupid Swedish, socialist commie fuck. 
The 27th amendment was passed in 1992, actually.
“No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
IOW, Congress cannot vote itself a pay raise effective in the current year.
I know what are really thinking, you bastard, go ahead, just say it. You feel that we Americans think life is a John Wayne movie – with good guys and bad guys, as simple as that. Well, you know something, Mr. Marx-Lovin’, Socialist-Saluting, Commie-Sympathizer? You’re right. And let me tell you who those bad guys are. They’re us. Americans. WE BE BAD. And you’re jealous.
We’re the baddest-assed sons of bitches that ever jogged in Reeboks. We’re three-quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother’s side. You take you’re Germany, France, and Spain, roll 'em all together and it wouldn’t give us room to park our cars. We’re the BIG BOYS, Jack. The original, giant, economy-sized, new-and-improved ass-kickers of all time. When we snort coke in Houston, people lose their hats in London. And we’ve got a MasterCard credit limit higher than your piss-ant metric numbers go.
You say our country’s never been invaded? You’re right, little buddy. Because I’d like to see the needle-dicked foreigners who’d have the balls to try. We drink napalm to get our hearts started in the morning. A rape and a mugging is our way of saying “Cheerio.” Hell can’t hold our sock hops. We walk taller, talk louder, spit further, fuck longer and buy more things than you know the names of. I’d rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen and jack of all you Europeans. We eat little countries like yours for breakfast and shit them out before lunch.
We’re the lords of the shitheap and don’t you forget it. Revise the Constitution? Hah! Make us, you gape-jawed gibbon.
UncleBeer, if you’re going to quote P.J. O’Rourke, you should at least give him a shout out.
Whoops! I thought I did up there in the subject field. Anyway, the above is with apologies to my buddy, P.J.
(Thanks, goboy)
Okay, I think it’s probably a mistake to follow up Uncle Beer’s post with an attempt at a rational answer, but here goes…
The reason we still follow the Constitution here in the U.S. is because it was never designed as an absolute guidance to day-to-day governance. It’s a general framework for how the government should act, and nothing more. It outlines the general make-up of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency… but has left each of those branches to define themselves in many ways (for example- how many justices on the Supreme Court? Doesn’t say. What is the duty of the Speaker of the House? Says the House should elect one, but doesn’t say what duties the office gives. Etc.)
It’s just a general framework that we expand and interpret as the years go on; rather than dealing with the minutae of governance (and thus becoming obsolete once new methods and practices spring up), it focuses merely upon the general ideas of how a government should be run, and what rights a person has that no government should interfere with (and even those are subject to reinterpretation- the “freedom of religion” has been modified to include “freedom from religion”; the “right to bear arms” is still under dispute; etc.)
I’d say something Pit-like, but all words fail me in my awe of Uncle Beer’s mastery of jingoism. All I can think to add is, “And we never sold iron to the Nazis, neither. Nyah.”
Juggler, here’s a little info on the Constitution. You say:
As a written document, ratified by all the States, the Constitution is, to a certain degree, rigid. In those passages where it says what it says and it’s clear what the meaning is, that’s pretty much it – Constitution says so, end of story. But beyond the rigidity inherent in any document – they all say what they say, no more and no less – the Constitution is actually pretty flexible. The flexibility generally derives from two sources. First, and as noted, the Constitution is subject to amendment. An amendment serves to modify the effect of the Constitution. Second, the Constitution is subject to judicial interpretation. The right to bear arms is a classic example: What do we mean by “bear”? What do we mean by “arms”? Should the right be narrowly construed (you may only have a certain type of gun and only in certain circumstances) or broadly construed (the government may not tell you what sort of gun you may have, nor may they tell you how to use it)? Judicial interpretation can and does have the effect of changing the “meaning” given to the Constitution.
It’s true in the sense that people like to talk about rights being inherent and not subject to change or infringement. But the fact is that the courts, through judicial interpretation, to a great degree decide the context and scope of the “rights” we enjoy, and that context and scope can and does change over time.
The fact that the Constitution still “works” – and works very well – after 200 years is testament to the fact that it is not an inflexible document. To the contrary, it can and does adapt to the exigencies of the times we live in, while at the same time standing for the idea that certain rights belong to all of us and cannot be taken away, no matter what the times we live in might seem to dictate.
Hope that helps.
Thankyou Jodi for a very good answer. Our old constitution here in Sweden was from 1814 and over the years became somewhat like yours. The text of it was interpretated by the courts to fit the evolved country. So we got rid of it and got a new constitution that actually says clearly the elementary rules. I understand thought that you don’t want to make a whole new constitution and just add to the one you got.
The other thing is that the Constitution does NOT contain laws. It is not “the law of the land,” it is a document that contains a framework for the operation of the government. It does say what kinds of laws the government may pass, but it does NOT, in itself, contain any laws. The one exception has been the Prohibition Ammendment, and a lot of good THAT was.
The Supreme Court only adjudges the constitutionality of a law by deciding whether or not the Constitution allows the government body in question to make the law being debated. It does NOT (as commonly believed) judge a law to see if it is either a “good” law or if it is “in conflict” with the constitution, which is to say it does NOT decide if the text of the law conflicts the text of the constitution, since the constitution DOES NOT CONTAIN LAWS. It says what powers the government has and what powers it does not have. There are not, nor should there be, any statements in the constitution that regulate personal behavior. A law (regulation) is constitutional if the governing body in question has the right to pass those kinds of laws. Thus, only Congress may pass laws regulating interstate and international commerce (The state of Nebraska cannot place import tarrifs on products from Japan, only the U.S. government can) while State legislatures have powers that congress does not (the right to pass criminal laws that define, for instance, murder and robbery). The Supreme Court has the right to invalidate any laws passed by a governing body that does not have the right to pass such laws, from Congress right down to a school board.
That is why the UK can have a “constitution” without a document. It has a code of rules that describe how the government operates and what its powers and limitations are, and that is what a constitution is. The U.S. “Constitution” is also more than just the document we call The Constitution. There are many governmental powers we take for granted that are not even mentioned in the document. Judicial review of laws, for example, is never once mentioned in the text of The Constitution, yet it can be considered “constitutional” because it fits within the mold of what tradition has determined how our government operates. It is still part of the U.S. constitution even if it isn’t part of the document we call "The Constitution. So on some level, our constitution is much MORE than just an old yellow document from the 18th century.
The sad thing is, that PJ quote is too long for a .sig
Ever heard of a thing called democracy? Did you ever vote for the fucking Constitution? Fuck NO!
It works just fine… unless you are the little guy. Big fatcats love it! Yay! GO TEAM!
You know, I’ve never been to Sweden but I bet it is not legal to bribe legislators over there.
Juggler,
Thanks for the opportunity to rant. “Seems to be sacred” heh heh. You hit the nail on the head there. Do you think the old homeland would welcome me when the Million Pound Shithammer* comes down?
*Props to Dr. Gonzo
Just my 2sense
The Constitution is a contract with death. - Frederick Douglass
jayron 32, depending upon how you define a “law,” the constitution either has many laws, or none. I don’t understand how the 18th Amend. could be considered a law while other portions of the constitution are not. If “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors . . . is hereby prohibited” is a law, then why isn’t the 13th Amend (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States . . .”) or the various powers enumerated in Art. 1, Sec. 8 (e.g., power to “provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United State”) considered laws?
+++++++++++
If I may comment on the OP, today’s US government is very different from the government of 200 years ago. There is no constitutional justification for administrative agencies, executive orders or judicial review. However, there is no express prohibition on these things either.
In fact, reading the Constitution would not provide you with any particular understanding to how the US government functions. All the Constitution does is provide boundaries within which the Federal government can function. All the details are subject to change.
I can conceive of vastly different governments that fall within the same general framework. A federal government with no antitrust regulations, for example, would create a very different economy than the one that is going to break up Microsoft. Imagine how different the US would be if the federal Government decided that no federal funds should be used to build highways. These major political decisions were not decided by small group of Whigs a couple of hundred years ago.
Keep in mind that the Constitution was very similar to a treaty between several independant countries that wanted to be able to reduce the transaction costs of functioning as independant countries. One Army. One Navy. One post office. One monetary system. Free trade between states. Free passage between states. Etcetera. In theory, everything else is regulated by the states (10th Amend: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)
Therefore, if one state decides to legalize homosexual marriages, there is nothing either the Federal government or another state can do about it. Similarly, if New York wants to say “possession of handguns is illegal,” it would be enforceable.
I should also mention that if Bush gets elected, (and he gets the opportunity) he will appoint a couple of conservative judges to the Supreme Court and voila no more “right of abortion.” Presumably, the Supreme Court will decide that since abortion is not mentioned in the constitution, the Federal Government has no right to regulate it. The abortion fight will, therefore, move to each individual state.
And that is “what’s up with” the Constitution.
Fuckin’ A.
a small voice from the crowd pipes up But I thought Canada invaded the States once. You guys ran, we burned down the Whitehouse, we got bored and went home to party and you guys returned to rebuild and that was that.