Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’

[Rich2018]

been there done that...
-peace

If you're talking about Glasgow, yeah, so have I.

 

[Ahlevah]

Why not ?

It's a poorly written document - probably the worst written constitution in the Western world - and is in urgent need of a re-write.

Is this a joke? If the U.S. Constitution is so poorly written, why have so many countries adopted its principles, such as the separation of powers, three equal branches of government, systems of checks and balances, and the idea that the power of the state rests with the people and not a monarch or an emperor? If other constitutions are better, why do those countries keep tossing them out and rewriting them? Most constitutions in the world were written within the last few decades. Ours is the oldest, and has stood the test of time, creating a nation that still attracts a lot of black, brown, and yellow people from all over the planet, who apparently decided they wanted to live among the privileged white bigots with the “kinda trash” constitution.

 

[Terryj]

Don't you hate it when those blacks don't appreciate everything we did for them by allowing them to be slaves? Why can't they understand that even though they were slaves that the document was pure perfection and you can't talk bad about it?

It's similar to a husband beating his wife. He doesn't want to hurt her. It's just that she needs to understand that dinner should be on the table at 6 and not a minute later. Amirite?

How long are we going to beat the drum of slavery, slavery is prohibited in the United States and it has been so for 157 years. I'm 72 years old, I've never met a slave nor have I ever met a slave holder. I really think it is time for this country to forward in this matter and stop wallowing in the past.

 

[notquiteright]

How long are we going to beat the drum of slavery, slavery is prohibited in the United States and it has been so for 157 years. I'm 72 years old, I've never met a slave nor have I ever met a slave holder. I really think it is time for this country to forward in this matter and stop wallowing in the past.

Old Reliables....

Now I grew up with blacks needing a co-signer to get a used car. The domestic help spoke gee-chee. Slavery may have been outlawed but the mindset is still here. I don't see wallowing, I see white America not wanting to have a reckoning with a truthful account of history and modern realities...

 

[Rich2018]

Is this a joke? If the U.S. Constitution is so poorly written, why have so many countries adopted its principles, such as the separation of powers, three equal branches of government, systems of checks and balances, and the idea that the power of the state rests with the people and not a monarch or an emperor? If other constitutions are better, why do those countries keep tossing them out and rewriting them? Most constitutions in the world were written within the last few decades. Ours is the oldest, and has stood the test of time, creating a nation that still attracts a lot of black, brown, and yellow people from all over the planet, who apparently decided they wanted to live among the privileged white bigots with the “kinda trash” constitution.

Short answer, they haven't

Without researching, I'm not aware of any other country that deems the judiciary as part of the government. In the UK for example, the judiciary is absolutely politically independent and for good reason. It's perhaps the biggest "check and balance" to government
Not so in the USA.

And the idea that the power of the state rests with a government, answerable to the people is millennia old, and in England, you might say it started when the king of England was executed in 1649
And further reinforced in 1680 with the English Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights (neither of which you've heard of it seems)

And countries don't tend to "toss out" their constitution short of losing a catastrophic war.

The goals of the US Constitution may seem idealistic, but it has to be remembered that it not only recognized but supported slavery - I can't think of too many other national constitutions that have ever done that
But the chief criticism of the US Constitution, is that it is just so badly written and vague

Lastly, don't kid yourself that people come from all over the world for the Constitution, they come for $$$.

 

[Ahlevah]

Without researching, I'm not aware of any other country that deems the judiciary as part of the government.

Huh? If it’s not part of the government, then what is it a part of? We have an independent judiciary, with judges appointed for life, but it is a coequal branch of government, and not an appendage of the executive branch.

In the UK for example, the judiciary is absolutely politically independent and for good reason. It's perhaps the biggest "check and balance" to government
Not so in the USA.

Wrong. We have an independent judiciary. Our courts can not be disbanded, and judges with lifetime appointments can only be removed under extreme circumstances.

And the idea that the power of the state rests with a government, answerable to the people is millennia old, and in England, you might say it started when the king of England was executed in 1649
And further reinforced in 1680 with the English Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights (neither of which you've heard of it seems)

England is not a good example. At the time of the American Revolution, Americans were still “subjects” governed by a monarch who assumed his authority under the concept of the divine right of kings. The American colonies separated from England under the then novel idea that political power emanated from the people by virtue of their possession of natural rights and were not simply subjects granted rights by someone else calling the shots.

 

[Vadinho]

Short answer, they haven't

Without researching, I'm not aware of any other country that deems the judiciary as part of the government. In the UK for example, the judiciary is absolutely politically independent and for good reason. It's perhaps the biggest "check and balance" to government
Not so in the USA.

And the idea that the power of the state rests with a government, answerable to the people is millennia old, and in England, you might say it started when the king of England was executed in 1649
And further reinforced in 1680 with the English Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights (neither of which you've heard of it seems)

And countries don't tend to "toss out" their constitution short of losing a catastrophic war.

The goals of the US Constitution may seem idealistic, but it has to be remembered that it not only recognized but supported slavery - I can't think of too many other national constitutions that have ever done that
But the chief criticism of the US Constitution, is that it is just so badly written and vague

Lastly, don't kid yourself that people come from all over the world for the Constitution, they come for $$$.

Well said. In addition, not a single US state copied it when they created their own state constitutions, not a single one.

 

[Ahlevah]

Well said. In addition, not a single US state copied it when they created their own state constitutions, not a single one.

Here’s a direct quote from Alaska’s constitution:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. (Alaska Const. art. I, § 19) (1994; previous version 1959).

Wow! The similarity of Alaska’s provision regarding the right to keep and bear arms to the federal constitution is striking. What an amazing coincidence!

 

[Vadinho]

Here’s a direct quote from Alaska’s constitution:



Wow! The similarity of Alaska’s provision regarding the right to keep and bear arms to the federal constitution is striking. What an amazing coincidence!

And this means what to you? Alaska became a state in the 50s, they are very rural, lots of tigers and lions and bears up there. The US constitution itself has never been copied en toto by any state or nation. If it was so perfect, how do you explain this amazing oversight of such brilliance?

 

[Ahlevah]

And this means what to you?

You mean it’s not obvious to you? It means your claim that “not a single U.S. state… not a single one” copied the U.S. Constitution is a load of hogwash. At least one did… verbatim, and I didn’t even look that hard.

 

[Vadinho]

You mean it’s not obvious to you? It means your claim that “not a single U.S. state… not a single one” copied the U.S. Constitution is a load of hogwash. At least one did… verbatim, and I didn’t even look that hard.

Boy, I have to wonder sometimes at the level of comprehension folks have on these blogs. If it was not obvious to you, the reference was the entire structure and content of the constitution. Picking one or two sentences out like a right wing talk radio host might work at your local bar but not with people who are trying to have adult conversations. This is about the constitution folks, the whole thing.

 

[Ahlevah]

The US constitution itself has never been copied en toto by any state or nation. If it was so perfect, how do you explain this amazing oversight of such brilliance?

Okay, so now you’re moving the goal post to encompass in toto, which is unrealistic and silly. Some state constitutions predated the U.S. Constitution and took ideas from them, so of course they would not be copying it. But Wikipedia has an article about how the U.S. Constitution has influenced national constitutions around the world.

Worldwide influence of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Vadinho]

Okay, so now you’re moving the goal post to encompass in toto, which is unrealistic and silly. Some state constitutions predated the U.S. Constitution and took ideas from them, so of course they would not be copying it. But Wikipedia has an article about how the U.S. Constitution has influenced national constitutions around the world.

Worldwide influence of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Some state constitutions pre-date our federal constitution? And that matters why exactly? Look, the thread is about a legal scholar calling out the federal constitution as trash and giving examples why he believes so. The rejoinder is that it is a sacred document and how dare this man call this piece of brilliance anything but the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. If I agree with these worshipers of 1790 thinking then I must ask why this piece of perfection has not been copied in toto as you suggest. How can such perfection be ignored? Here is the really cool thing about this topic that goes unsaid. Every single state constitution is more democratic than the federal one. So it seems as if states themselves desired a democratic system over a republic. A state could have created a republic of counties if desired but they did not. Why? Now I am thankful for our founders wisdom as are most white men but lets not kid ourselves about its perfection.

 

[Ahlevah]

Some state constitutions pre-date our federal constitution? And that matters why exactly?

Don’t be obtuse. I just told you why. It’s a question of the timeline: how can you copy something that didn’t exist at the time you wrote it. I mean, duh!

Look, the thread is about a legal scholar calling out the federal constitution as trash and giving examples why he believes so. The rejoinder is that it is a sacred document and how dare this man call this piece of brilliance anything but the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. If I agree with these worshipers of 1790 thinking then I must ask why this piece of perfection has not been copied in toto as you suggest. How can such perfection be ignored?

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never suggested it’s been copied in toto. But you can’t take a cookie cutter approach to such an important document. A state isn’t a national government. It doesn’t print money, declare war, or sign treaties. Then states have additional concerns that aren’t necessarily relevant to a national government, hence they tend to be longer in length. Like I said, your argument is silly.

But let me ask you this: what nation in the world has the best constitution, and what other nations have copied it in toto?

 

[LouC]

Some state constitutions pre-date our federal constitution? And that matters why exactly? Look, the thread is about a legal scholar calling out the federal constitution as trash and giving examples why he believes so. The rejoinder is that it is a sacred document and how dare this man call this piece of brilliance anything but the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. If I agree with these worshipers of 1790 thinking then I must ask why this piece of perfection has not been copied in toto as you suggest. How can such perfection be ignored? Here is the really cool thing about this topic that goes unsaid. Every single state constitution is more democratic than the federal one. So it seems as if states themselves desired a democratic system over a republic. A state could have created a republic of counties if desired but they did not. Why? Now I am thankful for our founders wisdom as are most white men but lets not kid ourselves about its perfection.

 

[LouC]

Some state constitutions pre-date our federal constitution? And that matters why exactly? Look, the thread is about a legal scholar calling out the federal constitution as trash and giving examples why he believes so. The rejoinder is that it is a sacred document and how dare this man call this piece of brilliance anything but the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. If I agree with these worshipers of 1790 thinking then I must ask why this piece of perfection has not been copied in toto as you suggest. How can such perfection be ignored? Here is the really cool thing about this topic that goes unsaid. Every single state constitution is more democratic than the federal one. So it seems as if states themselves desired a democratic system over a republic. A state could have created a republic of counties if desired but they did not. Why? Now I am thankful for our founders wisdom as are most white men but lets not kid ourselves about its perfection.

What is seems, which I have mentioned here before, is what Elie Mystal stated beyond his obvious intentional incendiary "trash" attention getting comment and that was his opinion that what the Founders wrote needs to be, or, to be fair, must be applied and or interpreted, based on modern day realities of the composition of our Nation and its people's.

It is a shame some folks only focus their seeming thinking off of that one singular word, trash, without putting it in full context of everything he said in that appearance.

I must repeat that I don't know if any of the Founders ever called the Declaration of Independence "trash" but between its presentation to the Colonies and the writing and ratification of the Constitution that whole passage, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." was stripped from our Founding and tossed into the trash bin, figuratively if not literally.

What for?

For expediency to keep old white privileged slave holders fat, dumb, but most of all HAPPY all at the cost of denying Creator endowed unalienable Rights of liberty and freedom for enslaved blacks.

 

[Vadinho]

Don’t be obtuse. I just told you why. It’s a question of the timeline: how can you copy something that didn’t exist at the time you wrote it. I mean, duh!



You’re putting words in my mouth. I never suggested it’s been copied in toto. But you can’t take a cookie cutter approach to such an important document. A state isn’t a national government. It doesn’t print money, declare war, or sign treaties. Then states have additional concerns that aren’t necessarily relevant to a national government, hence they tend to be longer in length. Like I said, your argument is silly.

But let me ask you this: what nation in the world has the best constitution, and what other nations have copied it in toto?

States did print money at the time. In fact, states were more important than the federal government to most of the founders which is why they broke into camps almost immediately. As for the all or nothing critique, its valid to a degree. After all, Hitler was kind to Eva was he not?

 

[Vadinho]

What is seems, which I have mentioned here before, is what Elie Mystal stated beyond his obvious intentional incendiary "trash" attention getting comment and that was his opinion that what the Founders wrote needs to be, or, to be fair, must be applied and or interpreted, based on modern day realities of the composition of our Nation and its people's.

It is a shame some folks only focus their seeming thinking off of that one singular word, trash, without putting it in full context of everything he said in that appearance.

I must repeat that I don't know if any of the Founders ever called the Declaration of Independence "trash" but between its presentation to the Colonies and the writing and ratification of the Constitution that whole passage, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." was stripped from our Founding and tossed into the trash bin, figuratively if not literally.

What for?

For expediency to keep old white privileged slave holders fat, dumb, but most of all HAPPY all at the cost of denying Creator endowed unalienable Rights of liberty and freedom for enslaved blacks.

You and I are on the same page here. The desire by some to make the founders into Gods and the constitution into a sacred document is at the core of this little debate and thread. I think it was a fabulous statement for its time. I think the founders were enlightened men of their times and most of them had classical educations that would shame our current batch of miscreants in office. However, as you noted so succinctly, their idea of a man or citizen is far from perfect or fair or just or equal.

 

[Nickyjo]

And how is FedGov authorized by the Constitution to fund public schools??

Madison himself used school funding as an example of exactly what was NOT Constitutional.

We've slipped all the way down that slippery slope.

How is it prohibited? If so, sue. The link below says it is 8% federal, 92% state and local. Been going on for many decades.

Federal Role in Education

This page discusses the role of the U.S. Department, providing a brief history of the Department as well as a descrption of the Department's mission and staffing.

www2.ed.gov

 

[Ahlevah]

States did print money at the time. In fact, states were more important than the federal government to most of the founders which is why they broke into camps almost immediately.

Yes, but with the creation of the United States the authority to coin and regulate the money created was granted exclusively to the federal government, so, of course, it would not have been included in a state constitution after that point. That clause in Article I is the reason states don’t print their own dollars.

As for the all or nothing critique, its valid to a degree. After all, Hitler was kind to Eva was he not?

If it’s valid “to a degree,” then give an example of a great constitution which was copied by another nation or state in its entirety verbatim. Good luck. I’m betting you won’t find one. On the other hand, you will find nations/states picking from our constitution some of its most enduring and relevant ideas, such as fundamental rights, judicial review, separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, the post of vice president, impeachment, etc. Since they did that, these must have been remarkable features of the document. No reasonable person would expect a country to consult and copy ideas using “trash” as a source.

 

[wist43]

How is it prohibited? If so, sue. The link below says it is 8% federal, 92% state and local. Been going on for many decades.

Federal Role in Education

This page discusses the role of the U.S. Department, providing a brief history of the Department as well as a descrption of the Department's mission and staffing.

www2.ed.gov

10th amendnent.

 

[Nickyjo]

10th amendnent.

The 10th Amendment has been “more honored in the breach than the observance,” as Hamlet put it, for decades, making it largely irrelevant. When states need help or drop the ball, the feds step in. Americans are nothing if not practical. I assume there must have been a lawsuit about the 10th sometime. Did any succeed?

 

[Rich2018]

If it’s not part of the government, then what is it a part of? We have an independent judiciary, with judges appointed for life, but it is a coequal branch of government, and not an appendage of the executive branch.

Why does it have to be part of something bigger ?
The judiciary should be seen as a stand alone, and completely independent institution

Just like it is in the UK and most, if not all, democratic countries
Only in the USA is it's independence compromised, by being regarded as a branch of government.

Wrong. We have an independent judiciary. Our courts can not be disbanded, and judges with lifetime appointments can only be removed under extreme circumstances.

Wrong
In the USA, the judiciary is part of the government. It interprets the Constitution that limits the power of the government

You really don't see the contradiction - a part of the government ruling on the rules for the government ?
Nowhere else in the developed world does this happen.

England is not a good example. At the time of the American Revolution, Americans were still “subjects” governed by a monarch who assumed his authority under the concept of the divine right of kings.

Wrong, the divine right of kings emphatically ended in 1649, when Parliament ordered that king Charles I, be beheaded
People in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a host of small island nations are STILL royal subjects Btw
And as recent experience has shown, democracy in those countries is stronger than in the USA, because of it.

The American colonies separated from England under the then novel idea that political power emanated from the people by virtue of their possession of natural rights and were not simply subjects granted rights by someone else calling the shots.

Novel idea ?
Hardly - are you totally ignorant of the Bill of Rights (1689), the English Revolution 1680, Civil War and Magna Carta (1215) ?

It would appear so
I bet you think America invented democracy too.

(oh and the English/British constitution has never supported slavery like the US Constitution did).

 

[Nickyjo]

Why does it have to be part of something bigger ?
The judiciary should be seen as a stand alone, and completely independent institution

Just like it is in the UK and most, if not all, democratic countries
Only in the USA is it's independence compromised, by being regarded as a branch of government.



Wrong
In the USA, the judiciary is part of the government. It interprets the Constitution that limits the power of the government

You really don't see the contradiction - a part of the government ruling on the rules for the government ?
Nowhere else in the developed world does this happen.



Wrong, the divine right of kings emphatically ended in 1649, when Parliament ordered that king Charles I, be beheaded
People in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a host of small island nations are STILL royal subjects Btw
And as recent experience has shown, democracy in those countries is stronger than in the USA, because of it.



Novel idea ?
Hardly - are you totally ignorant of the Bill of Rights (1689), the English Revolution 1680, Civil War and Magna Carta (1215) ?

It would appear so
I bet you think America invented democracy too.

(oh and the English/British constitution has never supported slavery like the US Constitution did).

As I understand it, the judiciary limits the power of the other two branches of the government, and is somewhat shielded by them by not being elected. Hasn’t this been the case since the late 1700s?

 

[wist43]

The 10th Amendment has been “more honored in the breach than the observance,” as Hamlet put it, for decades, making it largely irrelevant. When states need help or drop the ball, the feds step in. Americans are nothing if not practical. I assume there must have been a lawsuit about the 10th sometime. Did any succeed?

Isn't just the 10th Amendment, it's the entire basis of the Constitution.

That said, it seems you think it's cool to live in a country where the government belligerently disregards the law??

The people don't care, the courts don't care... gee, I wonder what could go wrong??

And what does that look like when things go sideways?? Does history give us any clues I wonder??

Good luck to you. Your country is in the final throes of collapse - should be a burning heap within 8 years.

If history is any guide, it'll be a hoot