The US Constitution - It doesn't help

[3point14]

Right,

This one could be tricky, but I'm having trouble when reading quite a few threads on the US politics forum.

Discussions around gun control, healthcare and a myriad other topics all seem to end up focussing on whether something is constitutional or not.

My question is this:

Why does it matter?

Really? Shouldn't the question be whether it's a good idea for the country, productive, fair, useful and the like? Why does it matter if it's constitutional or not? Is the constitution in danger of becoming an outmoded and out of date piece of literature hanging round the neck of the US preventing the enactment of legislation that would be a good idea?

I understand that it's subject to amendment, but that hasn't really happened a lot (once in my lifetime I think) and involves (I believe) the moving of metaphorical mountains.

Why are you guys in the US so hung up on 'Is it constitutional?' when 'Is it a good idea?' seems like a much better question to ask?

 

[rwguinn]

Right,

This one could be tricky, but I'm having trouble when reading quite a few threads on the US politics forum.

Discussions around gun control, healthcare and a myriad other topics all seem to end up focussing on whether something is constitutional or not.

My question is this:

Why does it matter?

Really? Shouldn't the question be whether it's a good idea for the country, productive, fair, useful and the like? Why does it matter if it's constitutional or not? Is the constitution in danger of becoming an outmoded and out of date piece of literature hanging round the neck of the US preventing the enactment of legislation that would be a good idea?

I understand that it's subject to amendment, but that hasn't really happened a lot (once in my lifetime I think) and involves (I believe) the moving of metaphorical mountains.

Why are you guys in the US so hung up on 'Is it constitutional?' when 'Is it a good idea?' seems like a much better question to ask?

Well, that explains a lot.
You don't have a clue about the US system of Government.

 

[3point14]

Well, that explains a lot.
You don't have a clue about the US system of Government.

Excellent.

Then educate me - what's inaccurate about what I posted.

An honest question - If I've got it wrong, then why do so many of the debates here about healthcare and gun control and other aspects end up in 'it's not constitutional!' or some variant thereof, rather than merely working out if something is a good idea or not?

 

[Newtons Bit]

The people who object to an idea on the grounds that it is unconstitutional are (generally) stating that it's a bad idea for the federal government to do.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

It sets up guidelines. If you discard it and say "well, if it's good for the country, then it should be legal," then you'll get into big trouble the first time someone gets elected that thinks what's good for the country is some good old-fashioned gulags.

 

[Giz]

Excellent.

Then educate me - what's inaccurate about what I posted.

An honest question - If I've got it wrong, then why do so many of the debates here about healthcare and gun control and other aspects end up in 'it's not constitutional!' or some variant thereof, rather than merely working out if something is a good idea or not?

If enough people think it's a good idea then the constituation will be amended. So there's no problem.

 

[rwguinn]

Excellent.

Then educate me - what's inaccurate about what I posted.

An honest question - If I've got it wrong, then why do so many of the debates here about healthcare and gun control and other aspects end up in 'it's not constitutional!' or some variant thereof, rather than merely working out if something is a good idea or not?

The US Constitution IS the law. Period.
It limits what the Government may do.

 

[Taarkin]

Really? Shouldn't the question be whether it's a good idea for the country, productive, fair, useful and the like? Why does it matter if it's constitutional or not?

If it was really a good idea, it would have already been thought up by our Founding Fathers (peace be upon them).

 

[3point14]

It sets up guidelines. If you discard it and say "well, if it's good for the country, then it should be legal," then you'll get into big trouble the first time someone gets elected that thinks what's good for the country is some good old-fashioned gulags.

Surely that's what due process is for? Legislature, executive and judiciary and checks and balances?

rwguinn is right - I don't know a lot about it, I just observe (perhaps incorrectly) that it's often a hindrance and a diversion in a lot of political threads.

Some other countries seem to get by without one

 

[rwguinn]

Surely that's what due process is for? Legislature, executive and judiciary and checks and balances?

rwguinn is right - I don't know a lot about it, I just observe (perhaps incorrectly) that it's often a hindrance and a diversion in a lot of political threads.

Some other countries seem to get by without one

Er. Um.. no?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Surely that's what due process is for? Legislature, executive and judiciary and checks and balances?

rwguinn is right - I don't know a lot about it, I just observe (perhaps incorrectly) that it's often a hindrance and a diversion in a lot of political threads.

Some other countries seem to get by without one

Guess where those checks and balances come from.

 

[D'rok]

Surely that's what due process is for? Legislature, executive and judiciary and checks and balances?

In other words, the constitution.

 

[3point14]

If it was really a good idea, it would have already been thought up by our Founding Fathers (peace be upon them).

That's my point. It was written in 1787 (or ratified then, or whatever). The world has changed a lot since then. 27 amendments in nearly 250 years? Isn't it struggling to keep pace with modern life yet?

 

[dirtywick]

Excellent.

Then educate me - what's inaccurate about what I posted.

An honest question - If I've got it wrong, then why do so many of the debates here about healthcare and gun control and other aspects end up in 'it's not constitutional!' or some variant thereof, rather than merely working out if something is a good idea or not?

Well the Constitution has a basic set of rights and liberties, and limits on government power. It's all really important to what makes the US what it is.

Of course that's not to say that people throw around the term "unconstitutional" pretty loosely sometimes.

 

[3point14]

Guess where those checks and balances come from.

So you can't have the checks and balances without the constitution?

It really does seem like an awfully big red herring. Healthcare is a big issue, and if it could be proved beyond doubt that providing healthcare free (at the point of delivery) for all was beneficial to everyone, and it could be proved that it was totally unconstitutional, wouldn't that leave somewhat of a quandary?

 

[dirtywick]

So you can't have the checks and balances without the constitution?

You'd be rewriting the Constitution at that point once you started adding in everything else. In fact, you'd probably come up with a bigger, more limiting set of laws because it's actually a pretty short list all considered.

 

[respect]

Surely that's what due process is for? Legislature, executive and judiciary and checks and balances?

Right, perhaps having some sort of legal document that declares these things to be the law of the land is a good idea.

 

[3point14]

Right, perhaps having some sort of legal document that declares these things to be the law of the land is a good idea.

Or lots of different ones that make it much easier to change with the moving times?

 

[D'rok]

Some other countries seem to get by without one

Such as?

 

[3point14]

Such as?

Well the UK for years. We now have some european version hoisted on us. And I think New Zealand have one, but it's only the US that (from personal experience only) seem to treat it almost like a religious document that cannot possibly be flawed rather than a tool for government subject to change.