• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The US Constitution - It doesn't help

3point14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The UK has a constitution. You have some fundamental misunderstandings about government in general, not just US government.
 
I think 3.14's point is that there are two questions.

1) In an ideal world would policy x be A Good Thing (tm)? and
2) Is policy x practicable?

The fact that policy x may require an amendment to the constitution will usually make it no longer practicable. Sometimes some people seem to take the position that the fact that policy x is (currently) unconstitutional means that it is therefore by definition not A Good Thing (tm) and would not be desirable in an ideal world.

In reality the two questions often get muddied.
 
I will grant that it sometimes makes it hard to do somme things that need to be done, but, at the same time, it makes it harder to rush some really bad ideas through the legislative process.
 
D'rok said:
The UK has a constitution. You have some fundamental misunderstandings about government in general, not just US government.
Click to expand...

Only sort of - it has a whole raft of legislation that acts like a constitution, but it doesn't have a single document called 'The constitution of the United kingdom'
 
brodski said:
Of course we do, but we have not codified it, nor have we any agreed on method of amending it or a consistent approach to enforcing it.
Click to expand...
It is partially codified. And the principles and prerogatives are well-established and well-understood. You even successfully passed them on to former colonies like Canada.
 
brodski said:
I think 3.14's point is that there are two questions.

1) In an ideal world would policy x be A Good Thing (tm)? and
2) Is policy x practicable?

The fact that policy x may require an amendment to the constitution will usually make it no longer practicable. Sometimes some people seem to take the position that the fact that policy x is (currently) unconstitutional means that it is therefore by definition not A Good Thing (tm) and would not be desirable in an ideal world.

In reality the two questions often get muddied.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

These are genuine questions, and I freely admit my ignorance in this matter, but forgive me if I point out that I feel some of the answers have a slightly defensive feel. Perhaps that's due to the slightly provocative thread title, apologies, but I wanted to get your attention.
 
Newtons Bit said:
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.
Click to expand...
I assume you're talking about the wider world, around here "it's unconstitutional" seems little more than code for "I don't like it".
 
3point14 said:
Only sort of - it has a whole raft of legislation that acts like a constitution, but it doesn't have a single document called 'The constitution of the United kingdom'
Click to expand...
An unwritten constitution is still a constitution. Go ahead and try to abrogate the principles of the UK constitution and see what happens. For instance, what do you think would happen if the Queen refused to give assent to a bill?
 
D'rok said:
It is partially codified. And the principles and prerogatives are well-established and well-understood. You even successfully passed them on to former colonies like Canada.
Click to expand...

No, it's partially written ;)
How the UK constitution works in practise is reasonably well understood, how it works in theory is pretty much anyone's guess.
 
D'rok said:
An unwritten constitution is still a constitution. Go ahead and try to abrogate the principles of the UK constitution and see what happens. For instance, what do you think would happen if the Queen refused to give assent to a bill?
Click to expand...

Yes, I appreciate that, but the fact that it's not a single document does allow a focus on the issue itself, with the awareness that precedent can be changed where deemed necessary, and I'm not aware of anywhere else in the world where the document is quite a revered as it is in the US.
 
brodski said:
No, it's partially written ;)
How the UK constitution works in practise is reasonably well understood, how it works in theory is pretty much anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that it is written, things are not radically different wrt to the American constitution. It is a living document that is interpreted. It isn't a death pact nor is it always clear what is or isn't constitutional.
 
3point14 said:
Yes, I appreciate that, but the fact that it's not a single document does allow a focus on the issue itself, with the awareness that precedent can be changed where deemed necessary, and I'm not aware of anywhere else in the world where the document is quite a revered as it is in the US.
Click to expand...
See my post above. It really is a living document. The USA is very different than the framers imagined it would be.
 
3point14 said:
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?

<snip>
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?
Click to expand...

Think of it as another way of asking whether or not a given policy is legal or not.

It's true that just because something is constitutional (legal) doesn't mean it's good, and vice versa. But you can't even ask whether or not something is good or bad policy if it's not legal.
 
D'rok said:
Aside from the fact that it is written, things are not radically different wrt to the American constitution. It is a living document that is interpreted. It isn't a death pact nor is it always clear what is or isn't constitutional.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.
 
D'rok said:
See my post above. It really is a living document. The USA is very different than the framers imagined it would be.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, and I'm wondering (and yes, wondering, it's a question and not designed to be provocative) if 27 amendments in nearly 250 years, most of which have seen the world change beyond recognition, is really enough to keep up with the times?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Think of it as another way of asking whether or not a given policy is legal or not.

It's true that just because something is constitutional (legal) doesn't mean it's good, and vice versa. But you can't even ask whether or not something is good or bad policy if it's not legal.
Click to expand...

What if it's a good policy, but technically illegal?

No, I can't think of one either, right now, it's very hypothetical.
 
3point14 said:
Surely that's what due process is for? Legislature, executive and judiciary and checks and balances?
Click to expand...

The question of constitutionality is one of the ways our judiciary is a check on the other two branches. It is part of the authority granted to the judiciary to resolve disputes under the law--include the Constitution itself (which is law, as rwguinn correctly pointed out).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom