In a post below, someone wrote, "... the constitution matters ..."

I put it to those who agree.  Why does it matter?  It is a set of laws written by a very few men a very long time ago.  Why is it that we treat it like the bible?  Do we treat it like the bible?

It is what this country was built on and it is why we are the greatest country on earth.

The Constitution has produced a representative democracy that has lasted, been stable in its evolution once the inevitable civil war after a revolution was settled, and is the envy of many many people in this world. I have had parts of the US constitution quoted to me by people in 3rd world countries many times, as a talisman, an aspiration put into words, for individual liberty and social justice, in many places that have never ever enjoyed these things. We amend the constitution in a thoughtful deliberative process, thus updating it to suit the needs which could not have been foreseen by the authors. We evolve our society with its guidance and without bloodshed. The key ideas of the constitution lay at the foundation of most every other successful governing document that has come after it. But if we abandon the principles of the constitution, it will not be long before we no longer have a representative democracy. Ask anyone around the world who has not had the privilege to live as we do, or who has sacrificed everything just to come to the US - they often have a keener appreciation for the genius of our constitution than we do. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all of its enemies foreign and domestic. I gave over thirty years of my life to this endeavor, and several times suffered greatly in service to that ideal. And I would do it all again.

Regards -  Gregory

There are other democracies with similar governments on our planet that use other constitutions.  I'm just not sure what makes ours so superior.  Is it just that we've had economic and military superiority for the last 150 years.  Historically speaking, that's a very small time for a nation to be in power.  Why is it that many act like this is the first time in history have had a successful government for a few years?

Because it is the first time in history that a government has existed that had as its principle that the government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. There are principles that pre date the constitution which were foundational to it, eg the Magna Carta. But the US constitution, formed in opposition to the the Kingdom of Great Britain, and on the moral and philosophical foundation of Enlightenment Deism (not Christianity), was totally unique in being the first successful iteration of a government that was not a Kingdom or an Empire in the Western world. There are many other founding documents today, the US charter the EU charter, etc. and these all draw their philosophical basis from our Constitution. The idea of a people governing themselves and a framework within which to do so successfully was invented by the framers of the Constitution.

Cheney saying that he's actually part of the "legislative branch."  Riiiiight.

Dubya trampling on our rights and freedoms and SPYING ON AMERICANS.


To me Dubya and his cronies are honestly TRAITORS to the United States.

Yet, the SAME people want to vote for McSAME?  You want MORE of the same?  Really?

GIVE ME A BREAK.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
- Ben Franklin

-- Modified on 10/28/2008 11:16:49 AM

The earliest democracy I know of was in Athens.  In 510 BC the Athenians were governed by a very successful democracy.  Every male who was born in Athens could vote (without regard to economic or social status).  The 500 person congress (or council as they called it) was elected by lottery.  Their democracy was copied widely in Europe with less success.  E.g., many other societies required property ownership in order to qualify to vote.  

In any event, the Athenian democracy was successful for 400 years.  I'm not sure how we are significantly distinguishable.  I can make an argument for it, but I don't feel I can be certain.

it is NOT that we've had economic and military superiority for the past 75 or so years... (remember, we did NOT emerge as a power until WWII).  

What we offer is freedom.  Freedom of choice - and freedom to fail.  and that is what both parties seem to wish to take away.... the freedom to fail.  Heck, even now, many feel obliged to "organize" kids sports such that all are provided with "self esteem" by getting a trophy at the end of the season, for winning?  no, just for being there and getting the trophy.

And least you think that this enhances self-esteem, I've driven 2 years with trophys in my car for kids who failed to show up... Kids know when the trophy is earned.

and so do we...  look around you, and think -   Many today live life to the fullest - ON CREDIT - cause the failed to earn what they spend.

What does our constitution provide to you?
the following - only that govenment will protect you from enemies, both foreign and domestic ie...  "the common defense"  

It provides for justice - not privalege or advantage - only justice... (a child asked me once - what is fair... I would offer that many say that they want fair, when what they really want is privalege.).  

It also provides for domestic tranquility... that is the right to live your life - however you wish, without someone telling you how to vote, how to worship, or to worship at all, how to do anything... as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others...

And finally - "general welfare" - and that comment is so often constructed to mean that those who are less fortunate are to be "cared for".... and while I have sympathy to them, I don't have patience with them.  General welfare to me would mean that we provide folks with the tools and opportunity to better themselves, provide for their families... and do what makes them most happy....  

What other government has these guiding principals as a cornerstone?  none... these are broad brush strokes... that, until our constitution, would never have been granted...  There is more offered with these few phrases, than in the whole of the Magna Carta... or the Mayflower Compact.

We truly seem to be destined to abandon these guiding thoughts - driven by greed, the desire for power, and a lack luster populace who have become complacent in their decline.

yea... I know, we're gonna be ok.... just let the government take care of us... that was NEVER The intent of the framers of the constitution...  Their intent was to get govenment out of the way of people - so that they could take care of themselves...  so now what?  we want the govenment to provide us with everything - guarantee that each person will have a house, job, healthcare....  So sorry - that not in there.

Athenian democracy was neither representative nor stable. It was not a society of laws.  Mob rule was the rule of the day (see Plato's Socrates). People governed by whim. This was a chaotic society. Put that scenario into the modern day and it would be much worse, because we are less homogeneous than Athenian society was. The genius of the constitution is that it adds to the principle of democracy structures designed to insure its stability, to protect the minority and to dampen change to a manageable level, and provides an overarching structure of law. The "rules" don't change at a whim and do not come from the mouth of a leader. And, please, give me an example of any democratic country in the West  before 1776 - I'd really like to know.

Cheers - Gregory

I've never observed that the left was any better in this regard. The Nanny State is not constitutional either....

I don't think you've answered what's so great about our constitution.  The folks who tend to rely upon the constitution to make their arguments.  For example, gun rights have nothing to do with the common defense, justice, domestic tranquility and the general welfare.

-- Modified on 10/28/2008 11:53:24 AM

as far as suffessful - they were.  but know that with very few exceptions - broad rights that we enjoy - they did not - try being of a different religion... or try living a bit differently - that would not be protected... as is under our form of government...

Oh yea... during your "golden age" rulers were oft selected by govenmental overthow by force... yea... I know - we are forced to endure Katie Couric's note book.... yeech I hear that one more time, I'm gonna drive into a cement wall at 90 MPH...

Our form of govenment provides and anticipates change - but not change for change sake... but real lasting change... it also calls for the assimilation of new people into the govenance... Athens?  not so much...  OH, and NOT ALL were eligible for office in Athens... mostly only the "upper class"  in short, Lincoln would never have had a shot.

yea, you go right ahead and live in athens... in 510 BC....   I'm sure you would enjoy it. - but be careful of what you say... as you could wind up with a cup of what ails ya.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but partisans only see culpability on the "other" side.

Athens was extremely representative.  Every single man had a vote.  It was a society of laws; it was governed by a council of 500 -- that's almost as big as our congress and they were a heck of a lot smaller than we are.  I don't understand how you say people governed by whim.  No more so than a mayor or local legislature does today.  

Why is dampening change a good thing.  I like change.

Of course, you can't forget the English parliamentary system with its 17th century bill of rights.  I would strenuously argue that in the 18th and early 19th centuries, our democracy was not significantly dissimilar to that in England.

assist the provision of a common defense... remember - both foreign and domestic.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And although I enjoy the complement - I did not write the outline... Our constitutional framers did... smart bunch of folk.

Great fucking post dude. I didn't know you had it in you. lol

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think the beauty of the constitution is not what it says, but what it doesn't say as you have so eloquently pointed out.

It is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

You have been reading my posts long enough to know that I was not suggesting that the Athenian society was superior to ours.  My point was solely that they enjoyed a successful democracy that was the most progressive society of its time.  They were successful for longer than we have been and from a relative perspective, far more progressive than we are.

Accordingly, I am left wondering, why do we believe that our system is so enduring.  I DO NOT wonder why we believe it is the best system yet created.  I am certain of this, but I am not so certain that it will not be soon improved upon.

The National Guard is our organized militia.  Gun rights are not about government providing defense.  I'm not sure what they are about, but I know it's not that.

I was asking why the constitution is so important, not what is says.  It is perfectly illustrative of the heart of my question.  Just because it says it in there, why is it important?  Why do we treat it like the bible.  So what, a few guys wrote that down hundreds of years ago.  Why is it offensive to question it or change it?

...except, I knew you had it in you.

It matters so you can post here. Without Free Speech, you couldn't do so. Nor could you speak your mind in other ways.  

That's reason No. 1. Want more?

I am familiar with the political structures. So tell me, in Athens, where did law come from? Socrates displeases the crowd and they vote him to death. This is democracy. This is not however the way I want to live. And the fact that this cannot happen in the US even to a minority of one is the difference.

You've changed the tone of your post, as I and others have picked at it.  Most progressive of its time?  That would really depend on your class - and to some extent your birthright.  

Again, our system as defined by the constitution (and as I pointed out) anticipates and provides mechanisms for orderly change.  In ancient Athens, change was only by military coup...  and change?  Well, things can "change" for the worse as well as the better....   best system ever?  well, when I travel, when I look everywhere I go.... I would rather be here, than there...  no question.  Do I think we have no room for improvement - no I do not.  BUT- I also think that some of the proposals put forward by BOTH major parties are pretty much in the entirely wrong direction - as both parties seem to be pushing an agenda that harkens back to the roman times... ya know, a show in the colluseum - to keep the masses from noticing that their society is collapsing around them... yea, change is good.

and not admitting the slightest responsibility on the part of the Dems. Since I don't really know what other aliases you have posted under in the almost five years you have been here I don't know what else you have had to say around here.

That is one of the problems I have with people who post here under an alias, or at least people who use throwaway aliases. You can't hold them responible for what they say. You might not agree with what I have to say, but I am accountable for every post I have ever made here over the last four years or so.

It's kind of like your guy Obama, he barely resembles the guy campaigning for the democratic nomination. He has completely reinvented himself in the last few months. He isn't the only one to have done it, but he should be held accountable for his own words.

why I quoted the 2nd amendment...

while you may offer that the guard, and other state militias are exactly what this amendment refers to, I would offer that there are two other reasons that this makes for good defense...

1st, it maintains that there will be  a certain percentage of the population that will be familiar with the deadly force that a gun or weapon offers... and their entry into the militia is welcomed... in providing for a strong defense...

2nd, what rogue nation would invade this country by force (Mexico seems to have realized that just invading by migration is a better way to go.) knowing that there would automatically be a guerrilla effort against them...?

... it is important...   How you choose to interpret it - though, is entirely up to you... and that my friend is the beauty of our govenment - I cannot force you to see things my way... no matter how important I might be- or who my daddy was...

I have not changed its tone.  Go back to the original.  You are now answering the questions why is this country great and is this the best country on the planet.  I can proudly proclaim hell ya.  I was asking about the constitution, however, not the country and its government generally.

What I was wondering about is why some people can say in response to an argument, "because it says so in the constitution."  That doesn't make it right, does it.  I understand its value, but I'm not sure I understand why the fact that people said it a long time ago is sufficient for me to agree that it is a good thing.  There are things in the constitution with which I do not agree (at least as interpreted).  Furthermore, and more importantly, I think there are several fundamental things missing.

In no way do I have problems distinguishing between Athens and the US.  Similarly, I have no problem declaring that we are superior.  I was responding to your claim, "[this] is the first time in history that a government has existed that had as its principle that the government derives its validity from the consent of the governed."

I still don't understand why we think our constitution is so enduring and unquestionably the greatest thing that could ever exist.

what I find deeply disturbing though, is that some of the supremes wish to start looking to Europe to define and interpret our laws INSTEAD of the constitution.  a very troubling move... on their part.

What has Europe provide to the world over the past 2 centuries?  first - they divided the world with straight lines... which only lead to chaos and tribal warfare in most of the world... and most troubling in the mid east.

Second, they offer WWI - a childs game a warfare...

Third, they offer WWII - an adults exercise in cruelty and inhumanity on a global scale.

Fourth, the offer the concept that man is subservient to the state.

Fifth, they offer only problems, with no solutions.

Sixth - they offer the french... 'nuff said.

I don't need our constitution to confer the right of free speech.  I could draft that law in about 5 minutes.

The framers of the Constitution were not so concerned about Government "providing" defense as they were their citizens being able to defend themselves "from government".

That is why the whole premise that the 2nd Ammendment was intended only to ensure that Government soldiers would have access to firearms is laughable.

Just in case you forgot what a militia really is.

http://www.answers.com/topic/militia

Much of this can *only* be attributed to Dubya & his cronies.

but you have to agree without a framework of laws that are based on the constitution what would be the point?

Everything of any importance has to have a foundation, we are a country of laws. What other foundation could we have but a Constitution of founding laws?

You also are aware the Constitution is an evolving document. Nothing you have posted lends me to believe that you are not versed on the subject and that you are just inviting something quite rare around here. "Discussion"

Congratulations, I was beginning to think the inmates had totally taken over the asylum. It's kind of nice not be have every discussion reduced to name calling.

You can draft a law that confers the right of free speech in less than five minutes if you tried.  My estimate is about 17 seconds, if you copy the First Amendment

BUT, BUT, BUT, as fast as you can draft a statute that grants free speech, someone else can grant a law that limits free speech, right after yours.

We need the constitution so if the other person drafts the law limiting it, it will be struck down.

They are having more and more restrictions of speech in Western Europe and Canada.  Those restricitions would be banned here, except for the Constitution.

Now, since you want more: Example No. 2) We need the constitution so when you are arrested for speaking, you can have a lawyer to defend you. You can write a law that gives you the attorney, but without the Constitution, they can take it away.

The constitution limits the laws that can be passed.

I will agree the Patriot Act was a horrible piece of legislation, possibly one of the most dangerous acts against our freedoms ever written.

therefore  more important than Bibles, Korans or any of that religious drivel. Most importantly , it keeps religious drivel from becoming Rule of Law.

we are not a democracy...
remember what benjamin franklin said after the convention..."we have given you a representive republic...if you can handle it"...it was not until woodrow wilson started throwing out the word democracy...but that is another thread...

What a wonderful and well thought out post. I love how you articulate yourself. *hugs*

The Constitution enshrines the freedom of speech and thus freedom to dissent. People also aspire to come to the United States for the opportunities for the individual to excel through his own hard work.

While founded on Capitalism, and free markets, the Constitution does not enshrine capitalism. The Commerce Clause grants congress the ability to regulate trade.

Change the USA to a democratic socialistic society, and we will be no more admired that other European countries.

Hello again - It seems to me that you have an objection to something that is really not the subject of the conversation I was trying to have - some kind of attitude toward the constitution bordering on Bibliolatry.  It sounds as though you wish to debate this attitude toward the constitution, that it is an issue for you. So, our conversation is not getting anywhere, because I do not understand what is driving your concern, and do not share it.

- you are very sweet. Thank you.

BTW, excellent comments.

The "original intent" of the General Welfare clauses (yes it’s in there twice) is not about socialism or social welafare either as we know it nor as defined by anyone else. Its intent was to prevent the establishment or the promotion of oligarchic classes of citizens. Franklin wrote about it as did George Mason, Madison and Hamilton as well as many others. They wanted a system that did not favor any group over another, any person over another. Freedom was still the corner stone.

General welfare definition was only bastardized beginning in the early to mid 20th century (read as FDR). It was only then that equality of opportunity and equality of treatment began to morph into equality of outcome.

In order to be a republic, the public must be the source and ground of government. In order to be representative, persons must be elected to that government. Without democracy, neither of these is possible. We are a democracy in the form of a republic that elects representatives periodically to the government thereof.

because when either Obama or McCain are elected, the Constitution will remain the governing document of the United States of America. Whoever governs will be guided and constrained by its wisdom, checked and balanced by the structures which it provided us. We have a government that remains stable despite the most partisan of politics, divisiveness of speech, and disparity of ideas. That is the genius of the Constitution.

The overwhelming majority of Americans know that it needs to matter.

It has always been elevated to a level that received and continues to receive a tremendous amount of respect and by some measures, reverence. It’s like a rudder on a boat, but it’s not directly or continuously connected to any helm or steering wheel. It’s a rudder that in some measure weighs more and is more massive than the boat itself, but at the same time it is extremely simple in it nature. It lacks complexity. It’s short. It’s easily understood. BTW, compare those observations to the EU Charter, treaties and Constitution that is how many hundreds of pages and filled with paragraphs protecting how many special interests? And still hasn’t been totally ratified.

Our Constitution’s simplicity is it’s greatest asset.

This rudder keeps the boat on the course previously laid out. It's the backstop to save us from ourselves when someone or some group manages to make a wild pitch. It’s the fact that “it matters” a great deal and is fairly easily understood that allows the Constitution to be called upon to strike down the whimsical laws enacted or to cancel the flippant decisions of lower courts. But it is also present to reach out to rescue those that have been trampled by a ‘democratic’ majority.

It seems to have been misinterpreted from time to time. The country’s morals have changes over time. The rudder CAN be changed, but it requires tremendous time and effort to do so. Two-thirds of the Federal legislature just to consider a change. Three-fourths of all states to agree, usually with time limits imposed. One amendment took over 200 years to be ratified. But it HAS been changed very quickly, once in about 3 months.

-- Modified on 10/28/2008 5:29:01 PM

and it's "results" depend on the morality of the people who participate in the marketplace. Managing companies to show a positive quarterly return by selling off means of production and firing workers is good capitalism but it's not good morally and it's not good for America. We need for our markets and our business practices to be better regulated for the common good.

i have ever heard as an explaination of a republic vs democracy...im dealing with idiots here...

on philosophical grounds. Dubya is not like any republican I've ever seen. Massive social programs and a huge power grab further eroding individual liberties. I would have expected this from a very liberal democrat....