"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead."
>>542469 But the Constitution is a sacred document. The fact that Europe doesn't view the documents that grant them rights as sacred and sacrosanct is why Europe has such little freedom now (and in the past). How many constitutions and republics has France gone through since the French Revolution?
>>542362 >implying people actually give a shit about the constitution and bill of rights
Americans only bring up >Muh Constitution (only their interpretation of it of course) when it can be used to support their motives. It's nothing more than an appeal to tradition. Judging how our modern laws shit all over the Founder's intent, anyone attempting to put any authoritative meaning to the Constitution is blowing hot air up your ass.
>>542505 The idea that rights are derived from God or nature insure that they are not abused. IF you have an idea of rights as being granted to you by the state you don't have rights, you have privileges that can be revoked at any time. As can be seen in the history of Europe.
>>542519 Unconstintitutional modern laws don't reflect any flaws with the Constitution itself or what it was intended to do, it reflects modern corruption and power abuse by those currently running things. Yes, a Constitution is only as good as the people implementing and defending it, but the Constitution itself is still superior to anything else conceived of to secure the rights of individuals.
>>542665 I personally think that quartering troops in your house during times of high threat to national security when it is prudent (like if a foreign power laying siege to your hometown, and you live in a concrete bunker on a hill) should be a civic duty. So yes, there probably was a lot of Bostonian butthurt poured into the writing of that particular sentence.
>>542534 meant to reply to OP, idk why I clicked your post
>>542541 The Constitution gave or at least implied the Judicial Branch with unlimited power over law. It created a bicameral congress in regards to small population and amount of states (~25 senators and ~60 congressmen in a nation of ~5 million). It set rules on adding new states but never mentioned the legality or illegality of succession leading to succession threats of various regions of the country and culminating in the Civil War.
>Constitution itself is still superior to anything else conceived of to secure the rights of individuals.
The early constitution didn't have anything to do with individual rights as the Bill of Rights was not incorporated upon the states, it only policed laws made by the Federal Government. It also condoned chattel slavery.
Rights are meant to protect you from government intrusion on your freedoms, not obligate you to do whatever the government tells you to do just because they claim there's some emergency or other. But I guess that mindset explains why Europeans feel they have a "civic duty" to take in millions of immigrants and house them in their own homes and clean up after their messes.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.