Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible

thats the only thing they contributed to human development, the constitution is somewhat unique and point forward unlike their entire non nation of backwardness

>>3246302
The constitution is written in a way that encompasses modern things. The only people that are against want to control people's personal lives

>>3246302
>>3246309
t. jealous yuropoors

>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book? You don't see that with other nations, they realize that law can always be changed and that the laws created 250 years ago may not suit the modern times.
How do I know that you only think this because you want to ban guns and enfore stricter hate speech laws. Anyways, you're talking out of your ass. Europe doesn't have as much civic nationalism as dickwawing as the yanks but changing our constitutional laws is almost impossible.

>>3246336
>civic nationalism as dickwawing
and*

>>3246336
How do I know that you only think this because you want to ban guns and enfore stricter hate speech laws.
Stop strawmanning.
I'm not even American you idiot. I couldn't care less if you shoot each other dead or introduce a police state like the UK where you have to show ID to buy a potato peeler.

>>3246322
Oh I'm so jealous we don't have 18th century laws over here

Fucking principles anon.

>>3246336
It's not a matter of hate speech or gun laws, euro constitutional changes usually involve the changing of the distribution of political powers and offices and the political process. You know, the boring parts of the constitution.

>>3246320
>The constitution is written in a way that encompasses modern things.
[citation needed]
I highly doubt that a document written in a preindustrial society by wealthy landowners (albeit highly educated ones) had the capacity to predict the huge social and economic developments that accompanied the industrial revolutions, the growth of the state and mass politics.

>>3246455
Not him, but a more accurate term would be "accommodates", as it maintains its relevance far beyond the late 1700s. The governmental structure and principles outlined in the constitution do not fall apart with time; it was written to accommodate social and technological progression without sacrificing its integrity.

>>3246471
>The governmental structure and principles outlined in the constitution do not fall apart with time
the structure fell apart once (the civil war) and changed beyond recognition from what the founding fathers envisioned (which i suppose is inevitable) to become the playthings of political party machines. You can hold this up as proof that the constitution can accomodate change, maybe, but it just as much shows us that a written constitution doesn't tell us much, and countries can function just as well without one (e.g. the UK).

>>3246302
Anon, the Constitution has been amended 27 times to meet the growing needs of a continuously changing nation. The only people who are against it are Constitutional Purists, whom are a vocal minority. Also, the reason why Americans "worship" the book is because it is literally the core of American culture and law.

I don't mind people criticizing it, but you should at least read the history behind it and understand what it represents to the people.

>>3246490
Nigel. The system never fell apart here even in the civil war. And while there have been amendments, the constitution has changed very little

>>3246492
I think the purists are the majority of the people and those who want it changed are a minority

>>3246302
A big reason is that the U.S. unlike most other "natural" nation-states was not founded upon ethnic lines. This meant the nation had no national myth-history or historical identity stretching into antiquity the lack of these two normally necessary unifying forces meant that in essence the Government and those who created it is the Nation. For instance France has had a bajillion different states but the national identity exists separately. Without the state however the U.S as a nation would not exist, therefore the state and its' institutions (such as the Constitution) were placed in the spot other nations use for more abstract or ethnic ideals to give a kind of religious belief in the American nation.

>>3246302
Daily reminder that while the American government has been more or less stable for 300 years, most of Europe has been crippled through tumultuous political changes and violent upheavals.
The USA was founded when the Holy Roman Empire was still a thing. Now look how much Europe has changed since then.

>>3246500
Fat load of good it does them when in countries like France they teach kids about how evil their ancestors were and only give Napoleon a 2 paragraph footnote in history books

>>3246502
Europe has been crippled through internal rivalry and the costs associated with operating outside a unified political unit, the USA is the size of fucking Europe, and one of the most resource rich parts of the fucking planet.

>>3246500
France is a bad example, they killed off tons of regional languages in 19th century. At the time of the French Revolution less than 5% of the population spoke what would later become Standard French

>>3246493
I'm talking about the NATURE of the political system, which changed drastically even in the decades after the drafting of the constitution.

>The system never fell apart here even in the civil war.
It did. The moment you have to fix a political system through sustained violence it has failed. I'm not saying it didn't get fixed, only that it broke and that the process of repair altered the nature of the U.S. government and politics irreversibly.

>>3246512
Nice excuses.

>>3246521
And America didn't because it's identity was based more on it's state/government than making sure there was a very specific ethane-linguistic setup like France had to do.

>>3246524
Just shows how little of an understanding you have on American laws and history

>>3246530
>little of an understanding on American laws and history
Please enlighten me, then

>>3246525
Think about the sheer economic and human cost of the civil war, America's been insualted from war by being surrounded by neighbours with fuck all resources (secured via the monroe doctrine) and an ocean, every other european power was able to be invaded over land (bar Britain, who became a superpower in their own right) or, post world war 1, able to be assualted with planes (which is when Britain's time as a superpower really came to a close), America's got collosal resources, no neighbours who could even start to threaten them, and 2 oceans worth of natural barriers.

>>3246525
Those are the primary reasons, not excuses.

>>3246546
>sour grapes

Enjoy your next coup and/or religious wars

>>3246554
>>3246525
why are you butthurt when the other anon gives youa reasonable explanation

>>3246561
their brain is too full of ideology. a lot of americans start acting petty like this whenever you start talking analytically about their political system

Read the 10th Ammendment.

The rights enumerated in the bill of rights are not privileges given to us by the government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to acknowledge rights that we are born with, that we would have no matter what the constitution said. So the bill of rights is not a lawbook. Laws are meant to enforce the rights outlined in the constitution. When the constitution is amended, it's amended to recognize new rights that we already had but were not acknowledged such as the freedom from slavery.

This is in contrast to other countries where your "rights" have been distorted to mean something different. You have no "right" to many of the things that the UN calls rights.

>>3246573
*9th

>inb4 americans can't read their own constitution

corrected myself, thank you very much

>>3246405
Fucking kek are you serious? You think that Europe doesn't have 18th Century laws? The same Europe that's famous for keeping old local laws that date back to the Medieval Period and earlier out of tradition's sake? Even then, so what if the laws are old? Should we drop things that work well simply due to age? Are you fucking daft?

>>3246631
>The same Europe that's famous for keeping old local laws that date back to the Medieval Period and earlier out of tradition's sake?
[citation needed]

>>3246660
Damn anon if only there were a place online you could look up "Old laws in Europe" and instantaneously find lists and lists of results which have citations and are easily researchable if they don't.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=old+laws+in+Europe
Oh shit look at that

>>3246686
two can play that game
http://www.businessinsider.com/strangest-most-ridiculous-laws-in-america-2015-3

>>3246302
1. 27 amendments
2. Why fix what ain't broken

How does one prevent negative changes to the constitution?

Hard mode: Slippery slope is not a fallacy.

>>3246302
It's called "the rule of law" you dumb shit. Do you treat your laws as malleable, meaningless nonsense?

saged

File: 1367179562556.jpg (49KB, 326x320px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 326x320px

>>3246302

Maybe thats why America has had the same government for over 200 years and in that short time, we went from a rag tag group of back water colonist to the most powerful nation in the world, while in euroland, their last 200 years are a revolving door of corrupt and inept monarchist, fascist, and communist.

>>3246500
Nation-states most often weren't built upon ethnic lines. The state was there first, it's powers inherited from the displaced aristocracy, and it built the nation up. It enforces the official language, maybe an official religion, a coherent taxation system brings measurement standards, educational and cultural campaigns collect and present the national history as desired by the state, etc.

>>3246573
>natural rights
Metaphysical hogwash.

Hobbes got it right. The only natural right is the right to do whatever it is that you are able. Unrestricted, this right leads to conflict, because the wills of other men often opposes my own.

>>3246502
Daily reminder that the USA are alone on a continent with 1culture religion and no enemy.

Ofc nothing changed, also kinda boring right?

>>3246302
>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?
They do? That thing's been amended so much there's probably more amendments than original text by now.
>You don't see that with other nations
Actually there are many countries with people going muh constitution every time reforms are proposed, see: Italy.

File: 1413626016801.jpg (11KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x320px

>>3247125
>The USA only has 1 culture and religion
?????????????

ITT: triggered americans

>>3246986
The rule of law does not refer to one document, but to the general principle you retard.

>>3246991
>rag tag group of back water colonist to the most powerful nation in the world
<citation needed>

>>3246302
Historically, many of the founding fathers were incredible ballers. The war of 1812 was postponed an entire decade because England literally wouldn't start shit until Washington was dead.

>At fucking 80, he intimidated an entire country into not starting a war just by living near by

The Constitution basically gives a legal ground to long standing moral truths. It's not perfect and has been amended several times, but the whole legal system is built on it. It can absolutely be changed but to not reference it as the final word of law would upend the legal structure in America.

Like literally the highest power of the courts is to deem something unconstitutional, which basically says that forever laws can't be made to allow that thing. (Take free speech since everyone knows that: no law can inhibit protected free speech because freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution)

>>3246336
>op asks decent question

You: MUH GUNS MUFUGGA MUH 60% WHITE MUH FREE SPEECH EUROPOOR USA USA USA GUNS GUNS

blast your fucking brain with one of your guns please

>>3247687
Valuable post, please make another just like it

>>3246302
Not really, here in Spain we're also very against the idea of changing the Constitution.

>>3246302
>Doesn't understand the distinction between constitution and law
Opinion discarded.

>>3246302
Because if you don't treat certain things as sacrosanct, your nation effectively has no principles. The constitution as sacred writ may occasionally cause problems, but I far prefer it to go along and get along style nonsense like they have in Europe in general and Britain in particular.

I'll never have to worry about being imprisoned for saying something mean about muslims due to my first amendment rights for example, and my right to ownership of firearms for self-defense and sport is guaranteed by the second amendment.

>>3246498
Yes, that's why we're getting legions of people clamoring for the elimination of things like Incorporation Doctrine.

>>3247687
Cry moar, you little eurofaggot. I'm sure you have good reason to do so given that your country is being raped to death by mudslime savages as we speak.

>>3246302

Yeah, a nation shouldn't have any guiding principles, it should just mindlessly follow the popular wisdom of the present year without regard for either the past or future.

>>3246764

>I can try and fail to deflect the fact that I just got my ass handed to me

t. not that other guy you were just arguing with

File: cbattleflags.jpg (70KB, 700x487px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x487px

>>3246302
>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?

It is a means of trying to trick the other party into saying bad things about the constitution out of contrarianism. There are very real flaws in the constitution but the biggest effort to get away from it has a very bad reputation for a good reason. Basically a way of silencing debate.

The other reason is that major changes to the constitution would need a level of agreement that is just not possible in this day and age. Admitting flaws in the constitution in public is admitting our government has unfix-able flaws in public.

>>3247834
finally a rational american reply

>>3246302
We don't

>>3246320
I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games. Did he enjoy them?

>>3246302
Dunno, I think Bioshock 3 actually draws an interesting parallel between the strict adherence to the constitution and hero worship of the fathers to religious adherence to the bible and worship of Jesus.

I don't think one caused the other, but they may have similar roots.

Question, would the US ever be able to agree on a modernized version of the constitution like in a non partisan fashion?
I would think this is near impossible, but then I don't know US politics that well.

>>3248206
Almost certainly not.
Plus, it's hard to see why there would be a need. The Constitution isn't a law or a set of laws. It's a set of organizing principles of how the government itself is to work. Short of some kind of revolution and elimination of the entire government altogether, it's hard to see why there would be such a radical restructuring.

>>3248206
No, if anyone tried Civil War will break out.

>>3248250
On that, Swiss here, like you might now we amend/alter our constitution every 3 months or so, courtesy of direct democracy. Every 100 years or so, so much altering and amending has been done and times have changed so much, that a rework is in order. Of course you don't change basic principles like division of powers and basic principles of government, but you bring it into one modern piece again. From a technical point it is doable and helpful.

>>3248276
And if you consider how SCOTUS rulings impact either the creation or at least interpretation of constitutional law, you get one of that every time you have a ruling on a constitutional issue, however frequently that may be.

I mean for fuck's sake; the Bill of Rights were not applicable to state governments until the 1920s, when one by one, the Supreme Court decided they ought to be. (The Third Amendment still hasn't been added, but that one doesn't come up all that often). Questions about due process bounce around pretty damn frequently; and the notion that the Constitution is some hidebound artifact of the 1780s which hasn't acclimated with the times is pretty ignorant.

>>3247128
>That thing's been amended so much there's probably more amendments than original text by now.

Constitution worshippers don't know that

>>3246302
Because we modeled ourselves after rome, and retroactively making changes that "modernize" a constitution fucked rome over

>>3246309
>touches grandfather's lee enfield used to fight off nazis
>gets killed by police for possession of a deadly weapon
Fag

File: 1472065210643.jpg (30KB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x358px

>>3247352

>actually trying to pretend America doesnt rule earth

lol

>>3248459
Endless civil wars and the issues that I caused coupled with grossly incompetent leadership was a greater contributor to the fall of Rome than "muh Constitution"

File: Dog blass.jpg (50KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x400px

>>3246302
>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?
We don't. We treat it like it's the highest law of the land, which it is.

>You don't see that with other nations, they realize that law can always be changed and that the laws created 250 years ago may not suit the modern times

We also realize this, which is why we've changed it 27 times. The process requires a lot of agreement though, since it is deliberately designed to prevent government suppression of natural rights, which is prevalent in other countries

>what would the founding fathers say about that?
This is because "original intent" plays a big part in our interpretation of the law. Not ideal, but it is what it is.

So I guess the better question is, why SHOULDN'T we rightfully respect the Constitution as both the foundation of our government and the most important body of law we have? So the white left can feel better about guns? I think not.

>>3248562
I was talking about the first bit

>>3247744
Britain has it's principles, they are determined by the electorate, parties that pass shit legislation can be replaced quickly, and their legislation destroyed equally quickly, with the only limits being political, you proclaim a republic of the people, then cower in fear at the people holding true sway over politics.

>>3247352
There's a reason that you know what are constitution is like, and we don't have to bother learning about whatever it is you people use for a rulebook.

>>3248635
>are constitution
the incredible intellect of the American mind

>>3248635
see this >>3248630

>>3248611
We've changed it a hell of a lot more than just the amendments. Show me the amendment that states that privacy is included in the 1st amendment, or that reproductive choices are in there as well. SHow me the amendment that defines, or changes the definition as to what is proper "due process" per the 5th and 14th amendments.

>>3248611
>We don't. We treat it like it's the highest law of the land, which it is.
Fuck off mate
https://youtu.be/EctFezm3vy8
This is a song about the formation of a legal document to define a new state.
Being sung about by young childeren, no other nation does this, British childeren don't sing songs about the glorious revolution or the Magna Carta, the constritution, and the founding fathers are given far more credit than politicians and legal documents in other parts of the world are.
>We also realize this, which is why we've changed it 27 times. The process requires a lot of agreement though, since it is deliberately designed to prevent government suppression of natural rights, which is prevalent in other countries
Natural rights are an absurd concept, and the first 10 "Ammendments" hardly count, considering the bill of rights was a compromise made in order to ratify the constitution in the first place, natural rights are invented rights, as are all rights, "natural rights" is essentially stating a falsehood, that all people are entitled to what you have in the constitution, regardless of how stupid it may or may not be, espeically in regards to militias.
>This is because "original intent" plays a big part in our interpretation of the law. Not ideal, but it is what it is.
Because there is a culture in America that the founding fathers were good people, honest, sophisticated, bold, never stupid, never bumbling, never human.
>So I guess the better question is, why SHOULDN'T we rightfully respect the Constitution as both the foundation of our government and the most important body of law we have? So the white left can feel better about guns? I think not.
You treat your politicans as gods and make monuments to them, effigies, legends, it's downright heretical.

>tfw your entire country still reads texts for intention and is too stupid to read philosophy post-dating the mid-19th century and this is the core of why even your best and brightest are clueless about moving your country forward

>>3246302
>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?
Because the rights put in it are unironically considered to be granted by god. That is what sets American thinking on this from European.

>>3246302
The constitution does change, its just really hard so that 51% cant impose whatever the hell they want on the remaining 49%

>Where does this personality worship come from?

Because Original intent is one of the most popular legal doctrines in interpreting the Constitution, so the opinion of the people who wrote it and voted on it are considered relevant.

>>3247687
Yeah that's what he said. Stay obsessed, dumb yuro faggot

>>3247352
The citation can be the image he used in his post

>>3248672
I'm not sure I get the issue. Do we not amend the Constitution? Is there something inherently wrong with it? Yes, we hold the Founding Fathers in high regard, but I don't see why it wouldn't be well-deserved. All-in-all I think you're just getting your panties in a twist over nothing.

>>3248672
>Natural rights are an absurd concept
Call them negative rights if natural rights triggers you, you autist. The whole idea is that Humans are capable of doing any number of things, and the government can not and should not infringe the ability to do those things unless absolutely necessary.

>British childeren don't sing songs about the glorious revolution or the Magna Carta
Maybe you should, then there would be a little more outrage the next time someone gets arrested tweeting a mean joke, or there's a random weapons sweep looking for safety scissors.

>>3246302
You are now aware that we've changed our Constitution numerous times, as it incorporates not one, but two ways to amend it.

So yeah. laws that were created 200+ years ago have been changed and changed again.

>>3249195
Of course.
But Americans themselves don't seem to realize that.

>>3248672
>Because there is a culture in America that the founding fathers were good people, honest, sophisticated, bold, never stupid, never bumbling, never human.

Actually my triggered autist, in the United States there is a form of jurisprudence where when a judge makes decisions he takes into account the intentions of the original authors of the statute when making rulings. There are arguments for or against such things, but the natural extension of such a view is that when dealing with laws which come in conflict with the constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, one must attempt to take into account the opinions of the Framers. There are people on the Court today and throughout American history who took a more libertine view to judicial rulings, and applied rulings as they believed correct.

>>3249195
>but two ways to amend it.
No it includes only one way to amend it. It was the Supreme Court who gave THEMSELVES the power of judicial review.

>>3249209
>implying this absurd form of jurisprudence isn't a reflection/extension of the culture the other anon was talking about

you're the idiot here

>>3249235
>implying this absurd form of jurisprudence isn't a reflection/extension of the culture the other anon was talking about

What's so absurd about it. If a law made with the intention to do X, but some fag comes in with some bullshit legalese to make actually do Y, then it seems to me to be a perfectly fine way to rule on such matters. It's all in how you view the judiciary and what your opinion their power should be.

>>3249209
>Actually my triggered autist, in the United States there is a form of jurisprudence where when a judge makes decisions he takes into account the intentions of the original authors of the statute when making rulings.
That is sometimes the case. It is not always the case. You can't exactly reconcile Incorporation Doctrine with Originalism.

>>3249218
Which is itself delinated in Article 3, Section 1. Judicial power is invested, not created, by the new constitution. That implies that American judges enjoyed the same power as common law English judges, and judicial review falls into that.

>>3249235

How is that absurd? Have you seen the sort of nonsense lawyers can do with laws that completely shit on the actual intent of the law in question?

>>3249273
>You can't exactly reconcile Incorporation Doctrine with Originalism
Pretty sure most Originalist think most uses of the 14th are bullshit, and try to create arguments without it.

>That implies
Again implicitly, which means a judge ruled this to be the case. Judges have great power in a common law system, but the exact powers of judicial review were never fully envisioned during the writing of the Constitution. Much like everything else about it.

>>3248881
>Maybe you should, then the...
If you have to use /pol/ and /int/ memes to insult your opponent, you need to reevaluate your worldview and how much you really "know" about the world, and how much is bullshit memes you knee-jerkedly spit out because the state, of your parents or you school told you it was so.

File: Really.jpg (113KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1920x1080px

>>3246502
Are you fucking high, Americunt?
You have TWO neighbors, because you are all immigrants there is very little ethnic conflict, you had to conquer basically cavemen, because of the previous, there were vast amounts of land basically undefended, etc
Pic very much related

>>3249374
>Pretty sure most Originalist think most uses of the 14th are bullshit, and try to create arguments without it.
Incorporation Doctrine has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. It is by definition the application of the Bill of Rights to state and local governance, not just federal governance.

>>3249374
>Again implicitly, which means a judge ruled this to be the case.
And if you don't have judges ruling on this stuff, the Constitution is vague and meaningless. You can't make heads or tails out of any of the three first articles, you know, outlining how the government is to be setup, without a SCOTUS like body creating and enforcing definitions.

>>3246455
The constitution was written in a manner that had less to do with fickle technology and more to do with age old human nature. That's why it is so easil modernized and so hastily abandoned by a modern government that wants its citizens to misinterpret it as much as possible. It's the most anti-government government document ever and encourages the people o be sufficiently armed to launch incursions at the first hint of authoritative abuse but we've successfully abandoned that

>>3249391
Tell that to OP then, this thread belongs in /int/ anyways

>>3249403
>And if you don't have judges ruling on this stuff, the Constitution is vague and meaningless.

Not really, in the first years of operation, many of the first "Constitutional Questions" on government function and its cope were argued over and posed in the Congress.

>>3249403
>Incorporation Doctrine has nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

>The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It literally relies on the due process clause to even function. Before its passage, state and local governments could due whatever the fuck they wanted as applied by their own constitutions. For a period of time several states had their own state sponsored religions.

>>3246352
>>3247687
Let me retype my post and highlight an important part of it
>How do I know that you only think this because you want to ban guns and enfore stricter hate speech laws. Anyways, you're talking out of your ass. Europe doesn't have as much civic nationalism as dickwawing as the yanks but changing our constitutional laws is almost impossible.
>Europe doesn't have as much civic nationalism as dickwawing as the yanks but changing our constitutional laws is almost impossible.
>but changing our constitutional laws is almost impossible.
>our constitutional laws is almost impossible.
>our constitutional laws
>our
I'm not a yank.

>>3249469
Please show me where Congress defined the following terms.

>Taxes
>Duties
>Imports
>Excises
>Commerce
>Science
>Useful Arts
>Due Process
>Arms
>Assembly


>>3249479
Which is why the doctrine does not rely on originalist intent of those amendments, since they were clearly not intended by their authors.

>>3249423
>fickle technology
i never said anything about "fickle technology". i'm talking about the transformation of economic social and political structures in the 19th century to a form irrecognizable to anyone born in the previous 2000 plus years.
>old human nature.
meme. human nature is infinitely malleable not in the alleged leftist sense that people can be molded at whatever age or condition to do anything they want, but that so-called "human nature" is a product of the social and economic constraints on our persons and therefore entirely dependent on historical contingency.

>That's why it is so easily modernized and so hastily abandoned by a modern government that wants its citizens to misinterpret it as much as possible.
Yes, but the assumption is that the limited government as conceived by the founding fathers is virtuous. Frankly, it is too limited, history has proven that, and limited government without fail benefits those who never needed government so much in the first place i.e. those men of independent means such as the landowning founding fathers.

>It's the most anti-government government document
I understand where you're coming from but, again, government can be a problem but this kind of irrational anti-statist sentiment of the constitution is more harmful than it is good and it's especially hypocritical that those same people who love to shit on the state so much are the ones that benefit from it most (the rich, and those states in the union that get more federal funding than they pay into it, namely most republican states).

> sufficiently armed to launch incursions
A historical myth. Militias had an awful track record in the Revolution and the conflicts that followed it (such as the Mexican American war but ESPECIALLY the War of 1812). They were only good insofar that they provided great PR for the rebel cause and in later wars against foreigners.

>>3246302
>You don't see that with other nations
You don't see other nations with the degree of liberty the United States has either.
>they realize that law can always be changed
The constitution isn't simply law though it's recognition of rights and liberties that all human beings are seen to inherently possess, ideas that define america as a country itself.
>and that the laws created 250 years ago may not suit the modern times.
What part do you think is outdated?
>Where does this personality worship come from?
They aren't worshiping the founding fathers it isn't about the people themselves when people say that they are asking if the thing being discussed is fitting within the spirit of what the country stands for.

>>3247019
>Hobbes got it right. The only natural right is the right to do whatever it is that you are able.
Well I guess it's a good thing then that the USA has the biggest stick, So the constitution stands.

>>3246352
Off topic but do you actually have to show ID to buy a potato peeler in the UK?

(((civic nationalism))), without the constitution we don't exist as a nation.

>>3248119
It's called protestantism, my dude.

>>3249764

This. The one thing neocons are 100% right about is the need to build up the constitution because to be an american is a philsophy as opposed to an ethnicity. People who try to rip down this idea are fucking idiots and are sowing the seeds for a giant fucking race war

>>3248206

NO. I find the very idea of this offensive

>>3246302
It's less worship and more just accepting the sad fact that this bunch of argumentative spergs were the best group of leaders/lawmakers this country has ever had at any single given point. They put their necks on the line for the the sake of Enlightenment principles and chimped out at each other over nearly everything else. Keep in mind they still managed to power through that and deliver a shockingly functional document that's actually aged really well and is, in fact, open for modification via the amendment system since they weren't idiots and recognized they were fallible and that times would change.

Compare that to the average modern U.S. politician, bought and sold via party affiliation, corporate sponsors, or both, and it's pretty easy to realize why plenty of Americans put a whole hell of a lot more faith in the dead guys. Letting Washington shit out amendments left and right would do way more damage than the cautious route we've taken so far.

File: 1410723862156.png (139KB, 250x259px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 250x259px

>>3247125
>are alone on a continent with 1culture religion

>>3246302
>why americans treat their constitution as some sort of infallible holy book
We don't, retard. There are literally provisions in place to amend it. We just don't, because hate speech is a meme and so is gun control.

>>3247656
>Like literally
Kys faggot

>>3249391
>If you have to use /pol/ and /int/ memes to insult your opponent, you need to reevaluate your worldview and how much you really "know" about the world
>Americans le worship le piece of paper

>>3250083
Thats not an exaggeration though. It is a sentiment thats quite visible in pop culture and my experience in the US

>>3246302
Rule of Law (the idea that government should be restrained by laws that it can't arbitrarily change) is deeply ingrained in American political culture. The Constitution is designed to restrain government, not empower it. This leads to all sorts of political dysfunction that often causes the opposite to happen but that's a story for another day. On the whole it's a good thing I think, that Americans venerate it so much. The USA would end up like Argentina if Americans didn't take the Constitution so seriously.

>>3246302
I don't really understand the point of a Constitution of you're just going to treat it like casual laws. It's not perfect but the point is to form the ideals of the nation off of it, so for the US personal liberty.

>>3249199

You don't seem to understand what you are talking about. The reason why I say this is because before you made this post, multiple posts

>>3246492
>>3246493
>>3246961

referred to the amendments.

Politically conversant Americans - Americans who have a basic, working understanding of their own government (I will say that this comprises anywhere from 10 to 50% of the population and let others argue the details, the point being that although perhaps a minority, it is still a sizeable and statistically significant cohort, no matter what)...

I say that politically conversant Americans, who comprise a large minority of the population per my above estimate, they all know perfectly well that there exists a process whereby the constitution may be amended. Among the rest, many even have a vague, dim idea that this is 1) true and/or 2) possible, even if they aren't familiar with the details or the history of the process.

>>3249697
I don't know, I'm just memeing

>>3248013
Scalia is dead and no amount of your slandering two corpses will change the fact that the Constitution comes with a written in amendment process that BTFOs every argument you've fielded ITT.

Related question from a non American.
The second amendment talks about the right to bear arms. Why is it that arm under that amendment has become to mean nothing but guns, and then usually only a specific subset of them at that?

Americans are basically deists.
>>3246320
Statists at all want to control lives. Hypocrite.

>>3250313
>personal liberty
>DONT DO THINGS THAT I DONT LIKE
epin

>>3250888

Above and in a different context, I stopped short (but I'll say it now) of supposing for discussion that this thread contains several Europeans who confuse Originalist interpretation of the Constitution with the notion that "the constitution can never be changed", which as any halfway educated American knows, is incorrect (via the process of amendment).

I'm not the person that you were responding to just there but the context of your objections seems to make fairly clear that you also don't understand this distinction, whether you're American or not - and worse for you if the former is the case.

>>3250941
well do you think it should include right to bear nukes?

>>3246302
Why don't you have more respect for the best drafted governmental documents of all time?

>>3250272
And it's quite visible in bong pop culture that they intend to completely rewrite your history so your citizens think their country was always a multicultural shithole, which requires supression of speech.

>>3252410
>best drafted governmental documents
Have you read thousands of other government documents? If not you have no authority to say whether its the best or not, meaning you're pulling it out of your ass and parroting what authorities told you about the document.

>>3253069
Who says I'm a bong? This is hardcore projection on your part

>>3246302
There has to be some kind of basis in the law of the land.

Simpsons had it right when they were making fun of School House Rock. The document has to be unchangeable or else you can just make up whatever the hell you want.

>>3246302
Well for one thing, the Constitution explicitly lays out a procedure by which it can be altered - which means that people give it more respect than they would to a document that actually pretended to be fixed and perfect for all time.
And it's worked well enough for the last 200+ years that America has become the world's most powerful nation.
Lastly, the Constitution is in fact constantly interpreted by judges. Far from being treated as a fixed text, it is in fact constantly being argued over.

>what would the founding fathers say about that?
The weirdest part is that we already have a good idea what they would say based on their own writings, which in most cases would be
>why the fuck are you asking us, you folks have to be at least 10 revolutions removed by now

>>3249490
>Which is why the doctrine does not rely on originalist intent of those amendments

Yes? This doesn't take away the fact that an originalist judge may in fact find that incorporation is unconstitutional or attempts to find legal reasoning that doesn't use the 14th to incorporate certain rights. You seem to think for some reason that all or most judges practice originalism, when in fact is only one view amongst judges.

>>3253634
>mfw the constitution is accompanied by hadith
wtf i love amerikkka now

>>3247687
Protip: The people in America who usually bitch and moan about the constitution in are overwhelmingly people who want to ban guns and/or speech they disagree with.

>>3248672
>Freedom hating non-american tries to understand the basis of America and its culture

>>3246336
Actually Americans have a rich history of ignoring their own constitution. The assault weapon ban for example is a direct violation.

>>3250941
What weapons do you have in mind when you say "only guns?"

The specific subset thing is because gun laws are unfortunately written by people set against them, who are more often than not completely firearms illiterate, such as Dianne Finestein, Michael bloomberg, etc.

>>3246302
It's a really good constitution. I recommend you do some research on it

>>3254874
>p.s. its the only constitutional document ive ever read

File: courageous man gives sage advice.jpg (147KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1500x1500px

>>3247687
>>op asks decent question

>>3250948
>Americans are basically deists.
What do you mean?

>>3246455
>let us change the constitution because the freedoms it provides are offensive to me and were written by le old men meme as if the freedoms it provides are somehow invalidated by le old men in 18th cwntury meme

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 12.29.08 PM.png (35KB, 926x109px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 926x109px

>>3256139
>the freedoms it provides are offensive to me
>translation: wahhhh you're not allowed to talk about the constitution and i'm willing to intimidate you into silence because muh freedumbs

> le old men meme
>translation: trying to tar me with "le old white men can't do anything" /pol/ meme, despite my not saying shit about their age or race

>the freedoms it provides are somehow invalidated by le old men in 18th cwntury meme
I never said. But while were on the subject see pic related. you're throroughly spooked if you think ideals mean anything without implementation in reality.

>>3256844
>thinks he's being intimidated on an imageboard

>>3256844
>you're not allowed to talk about the constitution im writing to intimidate you into silence
is this what retards actually believe?

>>3253517

Yes. I have read all of them. The US Constitution is magnitudes of order better than the best of the rest.

File: Man Looks Angry and Confused.jpg (59KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 660x440px

>>3249398
>very little ethnic conflict

File: Riots.jpg (176KB, 962x641px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 962x641px

>>3249398
>v e r y l i t t l e e t h n i c c o n f l i c t

File: 170514-charlottesville-robert-e-lee-statue-mn-1141_a2a6c4fe20de091186806cdbdd9f54c3.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg (96KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1200x800px

>>3249398
>VERY LITTLE ETHNIC CONFLICT
>E
>R
>Y
>L
>I
>T
>T
>L
>E
>E T H N I C C O N F L I C T

>>3248611
Good post.

>>3248206
Literally heresy

>>3248206
There's a strong movement to convene a constitutional convention, so we may found out that answer in the next five years or so.

>>3250941
It's called "common sense gun laws"
>You don't need artillery silly anon
>Well do you really need fully automatic weapons to hunt deer?
>Do you really need big magazines to hunt deer?
>On and on gun control marches
They get concessions made when a school shooting or something similar happens. One other thing they are good at is ignoring the purpose of the second amendment and frame it in terms of hunting.

>>3256867
>>3256893
it is, ad homing people instead of coming up with a rational line of argument is a way to avoid scrutiny and to intimidate the opponent or frustrate him in hopes that he is too much of a sucker to persist. There's a difference between "intimidating" and feeling intimidated; youre carrying out the former while i don't feel the latter in the least because your deflection is lame.

>>3257823
that whole movement is marred by partisanship so, no, there is no need to wait, it's already known

>>3246322
>A constitution is a uniquely American thing

H

>>3256844
>I never said.
You impmied the "old men in 18th century" by saying it was written by and for wealthy landowners.
>you think ideals mean anything without implementation in reality.
Basing a country on, however hopeless, ideals is good, a pragmatic/realistic one leads to suppression of "wrong-think" like we see in The UK and the Nordic countries. There should be no "wrong-think" and no "hate speech", because to have those means you're forcibly shutting down one part of of the population in favour of the other, however disagreaable the former is.

What exactly needs to be amended and taken into consideration due to post-industrial service economy and mass politics in the constitution? Freedom to defend oneself? Freedom of the press? Freedom to organize? What exactly is your gripe with the document?

File: 1503019486732.gif (3MB, 356x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 356x300px

>>3259244
>no "hate speech", because to have those means you're forcibly shutting down one part of of the population in favour of the other
>Rhetoric directly detrimental and calling violence towards a states own citizens ignorant of any commited, trialed, or evident wrongs should not be persecuted

This is the most related thread I could find; can someone give me a quick summary of the SUNPAC decision by the FEC?

>>3259451
That does get punished though

>>3257752
>>3257766
>>3257770
Do you honestly think that shit is even a fraction as hostile as Europe who's ethnic and political tensions instigated TWO WORLD WARS?

>>3260333
Not just the World Wars, pretty much every major conflict in world history from 1618-1945.

If there's something Europeans like more then killing other Europeans, I haven't found it yet. Maybe killing gypsies.

>>3260370
Fucking gypsies I swear.

>>3259451
>>Rhetoric directly detrimental and calling violence towards a states own citizens ignorant of any commited, trialed, or evident wrongs should not be persecuted
Where do you draw the line? Hate speech laws are a slippery slope.

>>3246302
They don't, except the kind of lolbertarian morons that only care about the guns anyway. Fact is, the US is insanely conservative and unlikely to push for sweeping legislation. Ergo, no new constitution. Ever.

>>3246302
>implying it isn't a divinely inspired document to make the most perfect government

>>3260641
>This is unironically what some Americans believe

It's literally one of the greatest political documents ever written, as is the Declaration of Independence.

But obviously, if you're a jaded, ironic, and postmodern nihilist, that doesn't matter to you.

>>3260697
*More like Bolshevik or Inbred Arab implant named muhamed

File: 02062e0c-830c-4063-9d55-72bcf07ae9a7_jellingestenen.jpg (48KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 620x349px

Because as a Dane I can pick based dudes from 1300 plus years of history worth of cool dudes, while most Americans have a comparatively shorter span, with the writing of their constitution being one of the major defining points in American history, and huge part of how they define their national identity, and unlike this fucking rock, theirs is a recent enough document that they can go fucking read it and it is still a part of their current legal system.

>>3260737
Mixed up the declaration of independence and the constiution, but my point remains the same.

>>3260413
What line is there to draw?

Keep in mind for people saying things get stifled in legislation, that's the point. The system is inherently designed to cause deadlock so that things don't get done except really slowly. It was made that way to prevent bad ideas from happening too quickly for people to rethink them.

>>3248541
You sure showed him with your projecting

>>3259222
Only good post itt

>>3249810
The post to end all posts.

File: sensible chuckle.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>3249423
>It's the most anti-government government document ever
ur joking right
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sebastien-faure-the-anarchist-synthesis

>>3246302
>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?

Idk op? why is America the oldest true democracy?