While replying to Jaime's 'The Liberty Amendment' thread, I found myself broadening my ideas to ask questions about American attitudes to the constitution itself. Being the new boy, and wanting to stick to the forum rules as far as possible, I thought I should put these ideas down as a new thread (be gentle with me - it's my first )

Here goes:

Americans seem to have an almost religious reverence for the Constitution. This has always struck me as slightly odd from my essentially European, though still Anglo-Saxon, perspective.

I can see that the drafters were fantastically clever in constructing such a precision instrument that covered all of the cutting-edge political thought of the day – there is no denying it.

However, in every other area of human endeavour, precision instruments originating in the eighteenth century are admired and cherished behind the glass of a museum display case, not in daily life.

Newtonian physics, or machinery from the industrial revolution, still have great resonance today, and many modern applications use the same basic principles. However, few seriously argue that we should still operate using beam engines and steam power, and those that do are not taken seriously.

It is true that innovations which discard old ideas altogether are usually resisted - look at the struggles of evolutionary theory to become universally accepted, even today. Alternatively, to use a political analogy, look at how long it took the USA to remove legally-enforced racism - only 30 years less than South Africa.

However, America, founded on an eighteenth century work of genius, seems to me to be afraid to tamper with it in any meaningful way, let alone rethink it from first principles.

Why is this? Do you fear that the constitutional balancing act is so delicate that any tampering might unravel the whole country? Do you not believe that there are fine enough minds in America today to draft a new constitution on your behalf? Or do modern Americans not trust anyone else enough to do the drafting for them, as they did 220-odd years ago? If you do support a new constitutional settlement, how would it differ from your current one?

I’m not asking for justification of why the constitution is so perfect – clearly it isn’t, or else, at the very least, gun control would not still be the hot topic it remains in US political discourse.

Nor am I asking for international comparisons. I am very well aware of the flaws in the British constitution, which to my mind centres on the monarchy and not the people. I think we should abolish one and raise the other – something most Americans would see as a very basic idea.

Actually isn't the Constitution based on the Magna Carte?

I do believe it is a "living" document that can and has been changed through out the years with amendments. So while it is not perfect (Can any document outlining a nation be perfect?). It is better then most.

Don't know if this even addressed your inquiry other then, to me it has been re-written a couple of times already.....

I believe that like the British Parliamentary system the Constitution has been reformed over the years to stay relevant for today. This is one reason why the Liberty Amendment idea makes no sense to me. I like the way we have evolved with the Constitution.

I am amazed at how effective the founding fathers were at laying down an effective government by their documents and their precedents.

I think the American populace does indeed have a religious reverance towards the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps partly from it being beaten into our brains in our schools that it is a monumental achievement in the history of man, but mostly because people on both sides of the aisle can use it to back up their argument on any given modern issue. You like guns? Second Amendment. Like to run your mouth? or go to church? or march for a cause? or tell the governement what you think of them? First Amendment. Don't want the redcoats in your house? Third Amendment. Like to get drunk? Twenty-first Amendment. It is, in fact, a living document because we can add newer, more relevant amendments as they become needed. There is, of course, the possibility of a Constitutional Convention, (Article 5) but I doubt anyone today would really want that...there would be no telling what could happen then.

Has constitutional clause or an amendment ever been seen as having served it's purpose, or become obsolete, and been removed? Can aynone imagine circumstances where such a thing might happen?

In other words, have Americans lost forever any constitutional rights that they used to have? I understand that the primary purpose of the US constitutional is to limit the rights of government, rather than define those of citizens, in which case I could rephrase as 'have any amendments given rights to government that limit the rights of citizens, rather than the other way around'?

I would say that such an act would be the acid test of whether the constitution (including all its Amendments) is truly a living document, rather than something where all prior activity is set in stone forever, whether or not is it useful any more.

Yes. The 18th Amendment became obselete pretty quick. It made alcohol illegal from 1919 through 1933 when it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Also, Amendments 1 through 15 are mostly concerning the rights of citizens. After that, and even a couple before 15, the amendments pretty much lay out how to fix certain governmental problems that may arise. The kind of stuff to keep the mechanics of it all going.

The 9th and 10th amendments have been severely weakened. The welfare and commerce clauses have been intentionally misinterpreted. The Constitution has changed dramatically, due to activist judges, since the 30's.

Wow, I can't believe I missed this one!

I love the Constitution. I think it is a marvelously crafted document from start to finish. It is different every time I read it. Of course it has flaws, but it has proven its worth.

I see the Constitution as a key part of our nation. We have no national religion to unite us. We are not all of the same race, and in fact are quite diverse. We do not have a national language. We have none of these to unite us as many other nations do. But we have three things at the core of America that unites us: money, the flag, and our Constitution. In my eyes, it is important that these three things never change. We'll always have George Washington on the dollar bill, the flag will always represent the same thing, and our Constitution will always be there protect us.

So I guess for me, it's not a matter of if there are people who could write a decent enough replacement. I think it is more that any attempt at rewriting the Constitution could deliver a huge blow to America's foundation.

Mike

Great point Mike, The constitution embodies that common principles tat Americans adhere to. This gives us a civic based nationalism instead of an ethnic or religious based nationalism. In this way the basic philosophy can be adhered to without concern to race, religion, ethnicity or gender. And as our society became more diverse and more equal we have been able to expand this philosophy.

The costs have been high, a civil war, a civil rights movement a century later, and the strengthening of the federal government through both of those conflicts to erode the power of states and extend universal liberties into the states and the public domain. But we have achieved (with warts) civic nationalism in our country. If other regions could get past ethnic, tribal, religious identities inside their borders we might be able to move beyond our era of ethnic cleansing, fragmenting nations, and modern religious conflicts. I believe, oddly enough, that Uganda is an example of a government reforming to create an environment of civic nationalism.