Full Version: Outside views on the American Constitution
With the birthing process of the constitution of the EU I was just curious about how those outside the US see our Constitution?
What do you admire in it?
What are its flaws to your way of thinking?
Would you adopt ours for your homeland if the choice were given?
What do you admire in it?
What are its flaws to your way of thinking?
Would you adopt ours for your homeland if the choice were given?
Moved to Casual Conversation since this asks us to explore our feelings and is not a debate. 
What do you admire in it?
1. Its brevity.
2. Its overarching sense that the state is not automatically the friend of the people, and has to be limited to protect them.
What are its flaws to your way of thinking?
1. The second amendment. Other countries make it perfectly easy to own and use guns - you wouldn't have to ban them outright if you got rid of the 2nd altogether. Indeed, as has been rehearsed on here many times, that would most likely be a bad thing for you. But I still simply fail to understand why it has to be a right that must not be infringed under any circumstances.
2. The complete absence of any references to the kind of "fraternity" mentioned in the French constitution; a clearer kind of sense that one of the purposes of govenment, and one of the objectives of society, is to act for the common good of everyone. I know there is a phrase along these lines, but this is seen by (rather too) many people as some kind of loopholes allowing taxation and welfare and so on.
3. I'm not sure if it's Consitutional specifically, but I think that US law (and laws in most modern capitalist states) needs to consider whether and how much to limit the very real powers of corporations, especially trans-national corporations, in the same way that the Constitution limits the powers of government. I have no clear or settled view what such limits should apply, but I am fairly sure that there need to be a great deal more than there currently are.
Would you adopt ours for your homeland if the choice were given?
No. Some parts of it are more universal than others. While I could see the First Amendment being braodly welcomed here, I don't think the Second Amendment would be remotely sensible to adopt in the UK, for example.
I would rather see some sort of acceptance in the US that, occasionally, and under very specific and predetermined circumstances, the US Constitution should be subsidiary to wider concerns. Such examples should not include things that the US government played no part in drafting or approving, obviously, but I do think that, moving forward in an increasingly globalised world, especially in the indeterminate future when America is no longer a superpower, such an attitude will ultimately harm American interests, if only through the precedent being set now.
1. Its brevity.
2. Its overarching sense that the state is not automatically the friend of the people, and has to be limited to protect them.
What are its flaws to your way of thinking?
1. The second amendment. Other countries make it perfectly easy to own and use guns - you wouldn't have to ban them outright if you got rid of the 2nd altogether. Indeed, as has been rehearsed on here many times, that would most likely be a bad thing for you. But I still simply fail to understand why it has to be a right that must not be infringed under any circumstances.
2. The complete absence of any references to the kind of "fraternity" mentioned in the French constitution; a clearer kind of sense that one of the purposes of govenment, and one of the objectives of society, is to act for the common good of everyone. I know there is a phrase along these lines, but this is seen by (rather too) many people as some kind of loopholes allowing taxation and welfare and so on.
3. I'm not sure if it's Consitutional specifically, but I think that US law (and laws in most modern capitalist states) needs to consider whether and how much to limit the very real powers of corporations, especially trans-national corporations, in the same way that the Constitution limits the powers of government. I have no clear or settled view what such limits should apply, but I am fairly sure that there need to be a great deal more than there currently are.
Would you adopt ours for your homeland if the choice were given?
No. Some parts of it are more universal than others. While I could see the First Amendment being braodly welcomed here, I don't think the Second Amendment would be remotely sensible to adopt in the UK, for example.
I would rather see some sort of acceptance in the US that, occasionally, and under very specific and predetermined circumstances, the US Constitution should be subsidiary to wider concerns. Such examples should not include things that the US government played no part in drafting or approving, obviously, but I do think that, moving forward in an increasingly globalised world, especially in the indeterminate future when America is no longer a superpower, such an attitude will ultimately harm American interests, if only through the precedent being set now.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.