‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World

[bigrebnc1775]

Whats the fuck is up with the madness at the New York Times? Part of the Constitution protects it employee's rights to do their damn job.

In this piece of shit article, the author actually claims that the US Constitution guarantees “relatively few rights.
There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.
The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation.
And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

WASHINGTON — The Constitution has seen better days.
Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.

The study, to be published in June in The New York University Law Review, bristles with data. Its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/u...und-the-world.html?_r=3&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

 

[Avatar4321]

The Constitution may soon hang by a thread, but it will be saved.

 

[whitehall]

It's probably intended to soften the outrage (if the liberal media was doing it's job) about supreme court Justice Ginsburg telling the people of Egypt not to model their new constitution on the freaking document she has sworn to uphold and protect, the US Constitution. She said South Africa did it better.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Well,it didnt work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution may soon hang by a thread, but it will be saved.

You would be better suited getting water from a rock than to see this country doing a U-turn. I feel we have went past the point of no return.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's probably intended to soften the outrage (if the liberal media was doing it's job) about supreme court Justice Ginsburg telling the people of Egypt not to model their new constitution on the freaking document she has sworn to uphold and protect, the US Constitution. She said South Africa did it better.

Don't that piss you off? The nerve of dip shits like that. I guess all the New York times cares about is the first amendment and only when it affects them.

 

[occupied]

The ideals are more important than the words, is it impossible for a constitution to guarantee freedom without being a xerox of ours? Hardly.

 

[whitehall]

The NY Times had a list of the "top ten tourist destinations in the world" in their magazine section a couple of weeks ago and #5 in the whole freaking world was...Oakland, Ca. home of the OWS rabble.

 

[occupied]

The NY Times had a list of the "top ten tourist destinations in the world" in their magazine section a couple of weeks ago and #5 in the whole freaking world was...Oakland, Ca. home of the OWS rabble.

rabblerabblerabble...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The ideals are more important than the words, is it impossible for a constitution to guarantee freedom without being a xerox of ours? Hardly.

Our rights have been written down to remind the government that it is the job of the government to protect those rights.

 

[occupied]

The ideals are more important than the words, is it impossible for a constitution to guarantee freedom without being a xerox of ours? Hardly.

Our rights have been written down to remind the government that it is the job of the government to protect those rights.

More modern constitutions have guarantees of human and civil rights first, not tacked on to the back as an afterthought, what's the difference? We have more democracies right now than we ever did.

 

[Valox]

The ideals are more important than the words, is it impossible for a constitution to guarantee freedom without being a xerox of ours? Hardly.

Our rights have been written down to remind the government that it is the job of the government to protect those rights.

That is not how I interpret it. The Bill of Rights (i.e the original Constitution) wasn't a reminder to the government to protect our rights, but a safeguard against government infringing upon our 'natural' rights.

For example, the First Amendment does not grant free speech in which the government needs to protect, but acts as a safeguard to curb against government from infringing upon free speech.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The ideals are more important than the words, is it impossible for a constitution to guarantee freedom without being a xerox of ours? Hardly.

Our rights have been written down to remind the government that it is the job of the government to protect those rights.

That is not how I interpret it. The Bill of Rights (i.e the original Constitution) wasn't a reminder to the government to protect our rights, but a safeguard against government infringing upon our 'natural' rights.

For example, the First Amendment does not grant free speech in which the government needs to protect, but acts as a safeguard to curb against government from infringing upon free speech.

Not that I said exactly what you said word for word but wouldn't what I said be the affect of what you said? To protect wouldn't it also mean not to infringe upon?

 

[occupied]

We do not own the concept or the form democracy must take. If they choose to have a democracy but not pay us lip service by adopting our contitution then it makes no difference to me. As long as it spells out the same thing in clear local language written by the citizens of any country it should make no difference to the USA, we do not own democracy, it's time we realized that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The US Constitution can only be understood and accurately evaluated in the context of its case law, where the meaning of the Founding Document is expressed through the process of judicial review, concerning actual laws and issues.

The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.

Nonsense.

The genius of the American Constitution is its brevity, as intended by the Framers, many of whom were trained in the law, and many more familiar with the law and its principles.

As Justice Kennedy aptly noted in Lawrence, writing for the majority:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The Constitution is therefore unique to the American experience, a brilliant culmination of the Anglo-American judicial tradition taking nearly a thousand years to develop, and perfectly suited to the needs of the American people when remedy is sought to check government excess.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The US Constitution can only be understood and accurately evaluated in the context of its case law, where the meaning of the Founding Document is expressed through the process of judicial review, concerning actual laws and issues.

The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.

Nonsense.

The genius of the American Constitution is its brevity, as intended by the Framers, many of whom were trained in the law, and many more familiar with the law and its principles.

As Justice Kennedy aptly noted in Lawrence, writing for the majority:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The Constitution is therefore unique to the American experience, a brilliant culmination of the Anglo-American judicial tradition taking nearly a thousand years to develop, and perfectly suited to the needs of the American people when remedy is sought to check government excess.

That's the New York times for you.

 

[Valox]

Our rights have been written down to remind the government that it is the job of the government to protect those rights.

That is not how I interpret it. The Bill of Rights (i.e the original Constitution) wasn't a reminder to the government to protect our rights, but a safeguard against government infringing upon our 'natural' rights.

For example, the First Amendment does not grant free speech in which the government needs to protect, but acts as a safeguard to curb against government from infringing upon free speech.

Not that I said exactly what you said word for word but wouldn't what I said be the affect of what you said? To protect wouldn't it also mean not to infringe upon?

While it may be the government's responsibility to protect and uphold the Constitution, the Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from government. After all, our founding fathers spilled blood to fight off an intrusive government. The last thing the anti-federalists wanted to do was give a new found federal government too much power to take away the rights that they just fought for.

The BoR is more of a safeguard against the government and other entities from infringing upon the rights of the individual. If we didn't have then, then government would be the biggest violator of those rights, which they arguably already are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is not how I interpret it. The Bill of Rights (i.e the original Constitution) wasn't a reminder to the government to protect our rights, but a safeguard against government infringing upon our 'natural' rights.

For example, the First Amendment does not grant free speech in which the government needs to protect, but acts as a safeguard to curb against government from infringing upon free speech.

Not that I said exactly what you said word for word but wouldn't what I said be the affect of what you said? To protect wouldn't it also mean not to infringe upon?

While it may be the government's responsibility to protect and uphold the Constitution, the Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from government. After all, our founding fathers spilled blood to fight off an intrusive government. The last thing the anti-federalists wanted to do was give a new found federal government too much power to take away the rights that they just fought for.

The BoR is more of a safeguard against the government and other entities from infringing upon the rights of the individual. If we didn't have then, then government would be the biggest violator of those rights, which they arguably already are.

Yes and true.

 

[JDzBrain]

More modern constitutions have guarantees of human and civil rights first, not tacked on to the back as an afterthought, what's the difference? We have more democracies right now than we ever did.

They weren't "tacked on" the back of the Constitution occupied. They were ALL written at the same time as the Constitution. George Mason, the man who wrote Virgina's Constitution, the first 10 Amendments and was the MAIN inspiration for Jefferson's writings refused to sign on to the Constitution because they weren't included in the original document. So, WHY weren't they included?

Because many of the founders thought that it was a more important political move to get the states "invested" in the new government and Constitution by getting them to VOTE to enact these Amendments, which were truths that they viewed as so profoundly self evident...as in we hold these truths to be...that they would easily be ratified.

They weren't afterthoughts...they were the things the founders knew would be supported and they used it.

I mean, if you think about it, it was a pretty dang smart move. They are basically restatements of the principles of individual rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence AND protection of state's rights and sovereignty. Just WHO was going to vote against it at the state level? ;~)

Founders were shrewd dudes!

We do not own the concept or the form democracy must take. If they choose to have a democracy but not pay us lip service by adopting our contitution then it makes no difference to me. As long as it spells out the same thing in clear local language written by the citizens of any country it should make no difference to the USA, we do not own democracy, it's time we realized that.

Actually occupied, although you are technically right, there is nothing that was invented by the founders in the Constitution...we don't have a democracy...AT ALL!

We have a Republican form of government. A Representative Republic to be exact. The founders ALMOST applied the one man one vote principle of democracy to 3 things in our government. Selecting the president, our representatives to the House of Representatives (NOT Senators...that is a bastardization of our founding principles as they are supposed to be selected by our state representatives) AND to Amending the Constitution, but they are not the true one man one vote of a democracy. And voting is NOT exclusive to a democracy!

Our government more closely resembles the Roman Republic of 500BC than a democracy. There have been a lot of Republican governments throughout history and there have been a LOT of Republican forms spring up over the last several years. Problem is, they are mostly Islamic Republics or some other theological or ethnic form. However, they will...just like the Soviet Socialist Republic...go the way of the dinosaur soon enough.

I view that as the reason there haven't been that many US style constitutions in recent years. Our constitution can not be applied to ANY government that rest power with any single group. It requires the people as a whole are the seat of power. When you begin establishing a new government by saying, we are an Islamic state or a socialist state or a Hindu state...and not "We the People" our Constitution can NOT be applied.

The BoR is more of a safeguard against the government and other entities from infringing upon the rights of the individual. If we didn't have then, then government would be the biggest violator of those rights, which they arguably already are.

Actually Valox, I view the Declaration of Independence as inseparable from the Constitution. The Declaration is a statement of what and why and the Constitution a description of how.

The concept of the divinity of our rights expressed in the Declaration is essential to keeping them. If rights are given by man, they can be taken by man. If they are endow by a creator...only the divine can take them!

Something else the founders understood about human nature and used. As long as the majority of Americans believe in God...and 80% do, our rights are safe.

As I said, they were some shrewd dudes! ;~)

 

[JamesInFlorida]

More modern constitutions have guarantees of human and civil rights first, not tacked on to the back as an afterthought, what's the difference? We have more democracies right now than we ever did.

They weren't "tacked on" the back of the Constitution occupied. They were ALL written at the same time as the Constitution. George Mason, the man who wrote Virgina's Constitution, the first 10 Amendments and was the MAIN inspiration for Jefferson's writings refused to sign on to the Constitution because they weren't included in the original document. So, WHY weren't they included?

Because many of the founders thought that it was a more important political move to get the states "invested" in the new government and Constitution by getting them to VOTE to enact these Amendments, which were truths that they viewed as so profoundly self evident...as in we hold these truths to be...that they would easily be ratified.

They weren't afterthoughts...they were the things the founders knew would be supported and they used it.

I mean, if you think about it, it was a pretty dang smart move. They are basically restatements of the principles of individual rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence AND protection of state's rights and sovereignty. Just WHO was going to vote against it at the state level? ;~)

Founders were shrewd dudes!

We do not own the concept or the form democracy must take. If they choose to have a democracy but not pay us lip service by adopting our contitution then it makes no difference to me. As long as it spells out the same thing in clear local language written by the citizens of any country it should make no difference to the USA, we do not own democracy, it's time we realized that.

Actually occupied, although you are technically right, there is nothing that was invented by the founders in the Constitution...we don't have a democracy...AT ALL!

We have a Republican form of government. A Representative Republic to be exact. The founders ALMOST applied the one man one vote principle of democracy to 3 things in our government. Selecting the president, our representatives to the House of Representatives (NOT Senators...that is a bastardization of our founding principles as they are supposed to be selected by our state representatives) AND to Amending the Constitution, but they are not the true one man one vote of a democracy. And voting is NOT exclusive to a democracy!

Our government more closely resembles the Roman Republic of 500BC than a democracy. There have been a lot of Republican governments throughout history and there have been a LOT of Republican forms spring up over the last several years. Problem is, they are mostly Islamic Republics or some other theological or ethnic form. However, they will...just like the Soviet Socialist Republic...go the way of the dinosaur soon enough.

I view that as the reason there haven't been that many US style constitutions in recent years. Our constitution can not be applied to ANY government that rest power with any single group. It requires the people as a whole are the seat of power. When you begin establishing a new government by saying, we are an Islamic state or a socialist state or a Hindu state...and not "We the People" our Constitution can NOT be applied.

The BoR is more of a safeguard against the government and other entities from infringing upon the rights of the individual. If we didn't have then, then government would be the biggest violator of those rights, which they arguably already are.

Actually Valox, I view the Declaration of Independence as inseparable from the Constitution. The Declaration is a statement of what and why and the Constitution a description of how.

The concept of the divinity of our rights expressed in the Declaration is essential to keeping them. If rights are given by man, they can be taken by man. If they are endow by a creator...only the divine can take them!

Something else the founders understood about human nature and used. As long as the majority of Americans believe in God...and 80% do, our rights are safe.

As I said, they were some shrewd dudes! ;~)

I disagree. I agree that the Declaration was "why", but it was why the founders signed the Lee Resolution. The Lee Resolution doesn't mention God, or religion at all. So I think that it's fair to say that the Declaration is the "why" to the Lee Resolution-but not the overall Constitution itself, and especially not the Bill of Rights.

The constitution is was really centralized all the states together to a singular nation.