Current Events > Isn't the strict adherence to the constitution in the USA a little crazy?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Just thinking about it from an outsider's perspective, isn't strictly adhering to a document written hundreds of years ago and using it to justify overruling things elected officials try to do inherently anti-democratic?

---

No, strict adherence to highest law in the land makes sense...

---

Isn't it explicitly anti democratic?

---

Honestly yes, it kind of feels crazy that this document is seen as some perfect codification of law despite the fact that no such thing has ever existed in the history of ever.

---

Ive been saying this for years. It baffles me that we stick to the Constitution SO religiously, even though its hundreds of years old and written entirely by men who owned slaves and didnt really seem women/black people as humans.

---

No one sticks to it 100%, they only use it to justify being shitty

---

The forefathers are basically seen as deities to many

---

It's only strict adherence to the first 10 Amendments, when it suits my goals.

---

originalism is based on unfalsifiable lies so yes, in the practical sense, TC is right.

---

Balrog0 posted...

Isn't it explicitly anti democratic?

Yeah, thats kind of the point. Its all about you WONT make laws restricting these things or allowing these other things.

We can debate the things it covers, but an overall guide about what limitations the government has seems like a good starting point in theory.

Okay, which ones should we get rid of?

---

nobody adheres to it strictly.

The muh constitushun! types want strict adherence to it when it comes to freedom of (hate) speech, second amendment and other things like that, but they thumb their noses at birthright citizenship, basic rights, etc.

It's a garbage document in dire need of upgrading and modernising.

---

Yes, it's an outdated document with many failings. After Trump was impeached, the process to remove him from office should be a special vote by us citizens, not the Senate. That whole thing displayed a major flaw in our Constitution's effectiveness to remove an unstable and incompetent president.

Plus the joke that is the second amendment, literally designed to oppress slaves.

It has failed us.

---

Since you're able to make amendments, is it anti democratic? I mean, I understand changes can be hard to pass, but still.

Anyway, I don't see too much wrong with having a set foundation to kind of build from.
---

YoungMutual posted...

It's a garbage document in dire need of upgrading and modernising.

does it need modernizing? Absolutely.

Sadly the conditions to do it are not here now, and they won't be in our lifetimes. Certain political party would cut down drastically on civil rights and would probably undo birthright citizenship and exclude LGTBQ rights in the text of the new constitution.

MFBKBass5 posted...

Ive been saying this for years. It baffles me that we stick to the Constitution SO religiously, even though its hundreds of years old and written entirely by men who owned slaves and didnt really seem women/black people as humans.

I know what you mean. I feel like we have a cult that worships this document, and considers it perfect. Most other places don't hold onto their constitutions so hard and have had several of them.

There's also founding father worship that goes hand in hand with this. No, the founding fathers weren't some godlike creatures that created the perfect document or system of governance. The constitution needs modernizing for sure.

---

I agree with Jefferson that the Constitution should expire (think he said every 19 years). The document was good for its time, but it's ridiculous to think that ideas from 1787 shouldn't be revised.

---

The constitution in the like the bible for people on the right, they pick and choose what to hold up as the word of god and disregard the stuff that counters what they believe.

its supposed to be a guideline, an infrastructure to build the rules and laws of the country; and in a perfect world where the supreme court isn't loaded with partisan judges and the legislature isn't made up of people that would rather shoot themselves over being seen as working with the other side it would be.

but we live in a world where loyalty over merit gets you elected to the supreme court, where legislators in many states have successfully gerrymandered themselves into for life seats, where the president openly flaunts the established rules and limits of the office because he knows his allies wont call him out on it.

---

The Constitution was designed to be amended. Don't like some parts of the Constitution? Then how about you try fixing it as was done successfully 27 times rather than simply bitching about it.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

The Constitution was designed to be amended. Don't like some parts of the Constitution? Then how about you try fixing it as was done successfully 27 times rather than simply bitching about it.

Yeah because that's so feasible



What a hot take

---

I dont know what you mean by crazy. Are you implying that we follow or not follow the Constitution based on whims? That would be interesting. Anyway, if its important to change something, your elected officials are supposed to push for amending the Constitution. Getting others to agree can be challenging, and just because a vote does not go your way doesn't mean its undemocratic.

---

p-m posted...

Just thinking about it from an outsider's perspective, isn't strictly adhering to a document written hundreds of years ago and using it to justify overruling things elected officials try to do inherently anti-democratic?

Considering the vast majority of people in the country think it should be followed, no?

Majority rules, that's democracy.

RustyFerret posted...

Considering the vast majority of people in the country think it should be followed, no?

Majority rules, that's democracy.

Not in this country, otherwise Trump wouldn't be president.

---

No. The founding fathers were intelligent men who wanted to escape tyranny, and were smart enough to realize that the United States could be corrupted later, so they wrote the Constitution to prevent that. If you oppose the Constitution of the United States, move to a police state like Great Britain.

---

RustyFerret posted...

Considering the vast majority of people in the country think it should be followed, no?

Majority rules, that's democracy.

so hillary clinton is president, and the legislature is led by democrats?

---

Pepys Monster posted...

No. The founding fathers were intelligent men who wanted to escape tyranny, and were smart enough to realize that the United States could be corrupted later, so they wrote the Constitution to prevent that. If you oppose the Constitution of the United States, move to a police state like Great Britain.

Lol

---

Its pretty nuts, but when both major parties are on the same side of the coin, theres little wonder why were still years behind our peers in terms of real progress.

---

Pepys Monster posted...

were intelligent men who wanted to escape tyranny

and they did that by allowing only a tiny % of the population to vote? and enslaving a whole race? haha you funny.


---

monkmith posted...

so hillary clinton is president, and the legislature is led by democrats?

And what does that have to do with the feelings of most americans about the constitution?

If someone came on here saying we shouldn't adhere to the 13th amendment, they'd be rightly laughed at.

RustyFerret posted...

And what does that have to do with the feelings of most americans about the constitution?

If someone came on here saying we shouldn't adhere to the 13th amendment, they'd be rightly laughed at.

He's just pointing out that your claim of majority rules in America is factually incorrect.

---

It's a living document that is open to change, hence the word "amendment" - but by requiring 75% state approval, it makes it harder to get changes through, whether by design, or a failing of the system as a whole is up for debate.

The problems go much deeper than a document though. When a society is thinking more in terms of rights than responsibilities, it'll behave like petulant children. The screeching of Orange Man Bad, the Birther screeching in regards to Obama, the screeching over muh gunz, the screeching over abortion. The openness and warmth of broader US society is wasted when it is combined with this tendency to obsess with the self and then screech.

You've got a society built to encourage that behaviour. If space gets colonised, the Australians are leading it.

---

The Constitution is outdated and needs to go. If the police need to violate someone's "rights" to get justice they should be able to do so.

---

Time_Rider posted...

He's just pointing out that your claim of majority rules in America is factually incorrect.

You guys assumed I came to this thread to seriously address a bad faith topic?

TC claims it's undemocratic the majority of us adhere to a document. That's a failure right off the bat.

RustyFerret posted...

You guys assumed I came to this thread to seriously address a bad faith topic?

TC claims it's undemocratic the majority of us adhere to a document. That's a failure right off the bat.

so what you're saying is you come in, make a bullshit statement, and when you get called out on it you just call it a joke/sarcasm? did you go to the trump school of double speak?

---

monkmith posted...

so what you're saying is you come in, make a bulls*** statement, and when you get called out on it you just call it a joke/sarcasm? did you go to the trump school of double speak?

I thought my original post was pretty obvious.

rust ferret is like majority rules, that is democracy!

Until we're talking about the electoral college.
Or gerrymandering.
Or changing the rules so less people vote.

hahahahahahaha

It's an outdated document, yes. It was designed for an entirely different world by outdated sensibilities, and the sheer difficulty of the amendment process makes it nearly impossible to get anything passed. Arguably the only amendments that introduced big structural changes required a civil war to happen.
It is designed to curtail the power of voters. It privileges just about everything over them, and institutional decay has ensured even the part that's supposed to be the most democratic(the House of Representatives) is both less so than intended, and also by far the weakest part of government.
I'm honestly not sure it's fixable.

Bestoffuture posted...

I agree with Jefferson that the Constitution should expire (think he said every 19 years). The document was good for its time, but it's ridiculous to think that ideas from 1787 shouldn't be revised.

At the same time some rights really should be irrevocable and permanently baked in only removable by the complete overthrow and destruction of the entire federal government.

Like freedom of speech , universal right to vote for adults and slavery being illegal...those should not be at risk every 19 years.


---

RoadsterUFO posted...

The Bill of Rights, citizenship, abolition of slavery, and womens suffrage should not be up for dispute.

you'd never get republicans to agree to that.

---

monkmith posted...

you'd never get republicans to agree to that.

and therefore, better leave the constitution as-is

These are the same people that use the Bible to discriminate against gays

---

100%...but...people are still looking to the bible as to how everyone should live their life after thousands of years duh deh doh

DanSmithK7 posted...

and therefore, better leave the constitution as-is

well show me a way to force the republicans in the legislature to either support or abstain. the catch 22 here is you cant change the constitution without the legislature, and the legislature is never going to have enough democrats to ignore the 2/3 majority rule required.

---

I wouldn't trust anyone these days to come up with a suitable replacement to the Constitution.