Philosophy Now Forum

No doubt America could and should do better. But without a constitution you have nothing. America gave that to the world.

"America's prospects are promising indeed": http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

spike wrote:No doubt America could and should do better. But without a constitution you have nothing. America gave that to the world.

Everything the US has they borrowed from Britain. Trouble is that the US has not changed since.
Europe has moved on, and left you behind.
That is how your constitution is failing you. It was out of date 200 years ago. You try to patch it up with amendments but it is sick at heart.
In countries that have no written constitution, their constitution is re-written with each new law.

The UK has the largest and most comprehensive constitution of any country on earth.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/

Everything the US has they borrowed from Britain. Trouble is that the US has not changed since.
Europe has moved on, and left you behind.Everything the US has they borrowed from Britain. Trouble is that the US has not changed since.
Europe has moved on, and left you behind.

These are very sweeping statements, especially about the US not changing.

Granted, much of what the US is was forged in Britain over the centuries, e.g the rule of law and the separation of powers. But If one studies the history of the US one will discover that it has been the most changing country on earth; it has introduced the most social changes. In fact, the changes and improvements it has made during its short history now greatly define and run the world, in business and politics. Furthermore, the US managed to develop and harness the resource that saved Europe from itself during two world wars. Britain alone could not have managed that. (It was the US that had the muscle to keep the Soviet Union in check.)

Had it not been for the efforts of the US to restore order and rebuild infrastructure in Europe after WW2 the continent may today still be the shell it was following that war.

By the way, I am not an American, so not necessarily bias. I just notice the occurrence of greatness when it happens.

spike wrote:

Everything the US has they borrowed from Britain. Trouble is that the US has not changed since.
Europe has moved on, and left you behind.Everything the US has they borrowed from Britain. Trouble is that the US has not changed since.
Europe has moved on, and left you behind.

These are very sweeping statements, especially about the US not changing..

I thought you liked sweeping statements, like this one:"No doubt America could and should do better. But without a constitution you have nothing. America gave that to the world."

I really think the rest of the world is pretty fucking tired on hearing that shit.

Oh and btw, I am American, and so am not bias either.

spike wrote:No doubt America could and should do better. But without a constitution you have nothing. America gave that to the world.

The idea of a constitution and the concept of liberty can be traced back to the Roman Republic and there is certainly a link between Roman law and common law. The U.K and U.S Constitution is the result of historical development that was given expression through the efforts of Enlightenment scholars. So we actually gave it to you, rather than America giving it to the world.

Ginkgo wrote:

spike wrote:No doubt America could and should do better. But without a constitution you have nothing. America gave that to the world.

The idea of a constitution and the concept of liberty can be traced back to the Roman Republic and there is certainly a link between Roman law and common law. The U.K and U.S Constitution is the result of historical development that was given expression through the efforts of Enlightenment scholars. So we actually gave it to you, rather than America giving it to the world.

John Locke, Adam Smith, even Oliver Cromwell had a role to play.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

spike wrote:No doubt America could and should do better. But without a constitution you have nothing. America gave that to the world.

The idea of a constitution and the concept of liberty can be traced back to the Roman Republic and there is certainly a link between Roman law and common law. The U.K and U.S Constitution is the result of historical development that was given expression through the efforts of Enlightenment scholars. So we actually gave it to you, rather than America giving it to the world.

John Locke, Adam Smith, even Oliver Cromwell had a role to play.

Yes, especially Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Yes, I agree that the American constitution evolved from many sources. But no other constitution had been so comprehensive and detailed, especial about the separation of powers and the rights of individuals. No constitution had ever elevated or protected the individual in such a manner as the American constitution. It was a first.

Earlier constitution argued and mostly protected the power at the top, primarily protecting the state. Power was generally from the top - down. The American constitution was more about power from the bottom - up, power from the people.

spike wrote:Yes, I agree that the American constitution evolved from many sources. But no other constitution had been so comprehensive and detailed, especial about the separation of powers and the rights of individuals. No constitution had ever elevated or protected the individual in such a manner as the American constitution. It was a first.
.

You are talking nonsense. There is a massive history of constitutional writing. One thinks os Solon, Draco, examples from Rome; lex Theodosius; Magna Carta, and even the Bill of RIghts (1689) upon which the US bill was based.
It was not a first; nowhere near. America is very good at one thing; self publicity.

The written constitution was necessitated by the terrorists that wrote it. Other countries already had sound constitutions written by precedent.
As for the individual. The 100 years that followed the constitution granted less than 5% of the population the vote; excluding all men without property and white skin, and all women.
So much for the individual.

Maybe it's time to shrug off your High School Civics classes and delve into the deep history of the rest of the world? The truth is out there and it is far more complicated than you might want to imagine.

Lev Muishkin wrote:...
Civilized Countries do not require a written constitution. their constitutions are written year by year with new laws that respond to change.

Always ironic that the UK civil service has been helping other countries draft written constitutions.

Arising_uk wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:...
Civilized Countries do not require a written constitution. their constitutions are written year by year with new laws that respond to change.

Always ironic that the UK civil service has been helping other countries draft written constitutions.

Indeed. I suppose it takes a real anorak to assimilate the whole of Hansard!!!

I suppose you could say that in the Uk the culture leads the constitution. In new countries a written constitution is needed to guide the culture.
I don't think it works that way too well.
Afterall the US constitution was widely ignored for over 100 years. And "We the People" seemed to mean a tiny minority of the population well into the late 19thC.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

spike wrote:Yes, I agree that the American constitution evolved from many sources. But no other constitution had been so comprehensive and detailed, especial about the separation of powers and the rights of individuals. No constitution had ever elevated or protected the individual in such a manner as the American constitution. It was a first.
.

You are talking nonsense. There is a massive history of constitutional writing. One thinks os Solon, Draco, examples from Rome; lex Theodosius; Magna Carta, and even the Bill of RIghts (1689) upon which the US bill was based.
It was not a first; nowhere near. America is very good at one thing; self publicity.

The written constitution was necessitated by the terrorists that wrote it. Other countries already had sound constitutions written by precedent.
As for the individual. The 100 years that followed the constitution granted less than 5% of the population the vote; excluding all men without property and white skin, and all women.
So much for the individual.

Maybe it's time to shrug off your High School Civics classes and delve into the deep history of the rest of the world? The truth is out there and it is far more complicated than you might want to imagine.

I am agreed with you in the second point but not in the first one.

If we are talking of constitutions, the history of constitutional writing is very different among the constitutions. It couldn't share the constitution of Solon with the constitution of Clarendon, and theses with a liberal constitution. As well as, neither among the liberal constitutions we can share them. We might not discuss about a lexical concept, because of there were constitutions in the ancient canonical law also, for example.

Constitutionalism is flexible. A discussion about why in US the constitution is more functional it would be interesting. However, we shouldn't forget that the constitution of US it was useful for becoming a nation with states, meanwhile the european nations didn't need constitutions for becoming, because they was it already.

Afterall the US constitution was widely ignored for over 100 years. And "We the People" seemed to mean a tiny minority of the population well into the late 19thC.

As the saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day". People have to be persuaded to accept a constitution and that takes time. You can't beat them over the head with it in order to comply, which would defeat the whole purpose. Moreover, America is a complex county with many diverse interests, which puts a lot of pressure on a living constitution, trying to achieve a balance. And as for the first 100 years mentioned, nation building was more on the minds of many Americans rather than on constitutional matters.

The American constitution is a utilitarian document, which was the first of its kind. Having such a constitution doesn't make it easy because it often means different things to different people, hence the infighting over it and the appearance of it being ignored.

penicillin

-Imp