As a non-American (I am English but live in Wales) I am curious as to exactly what the Constitution signifies to Americans.

It has on occasion seemed to me that it is perceived by some Americans as an almost sacred document - almost like a piece of religious scripture, and that the intentions of the American forefathers are sometimes rated above the needs of the present day.

Now, I imagine that this impression is both one-sided and does an injustice to the relationship between the average American and his Constitution, so I am hoping that some of you might tell me how you perceive the Consititution and its place within America and indeed the World.

I look at the Constitution as the supreme law of the land; as the document that insures our liberty. I look at the constitution as originally a libertarian document (AT LEAST AS FAR AS WHITE MALES WERE CONCERNED). Attempts to alter the Constitution by judicial activism, rather than amendments, makes a mockery of the law. It is like playing poker and suddenly learning two pair now beats three of a kind. The USSR had a good constitution,ON PAPER.

Our founding fathers recognized that governments, throughout history, had done a great deal more harm than good. The Constitution was meant to give the federal government power to enforce its responsibilities in Article I section 8 of the Constitution. This excludes the welfare state.

So to what extent do you think the vision of the Founding Fathers is relevant today in comparison to the pressures and challenges of modern government?

I have often seen Americans saying things like 'This is not what our Founding Fathers intended', but what i wonder is; how much does that actually matter, and if it matters a lot, why?

I agree with Hugo's previous post. The role of the Constitution is to define what government is allowed to do. The purpose is to limit government, in effect to be the chains that bind down Leviathan. If it is to do that effectively, it cannot be flexible. Of what earthly use are stretchy chains?

That's more relevant today then ever, as government pushes more and more to expand beyond its Constitutionally defined boundaries, which is the nature of the beast, as the Founders clearly saw. If there's some function our government legitimately needs that the Constitution doesn't allow - which is of course possible, the Founders couldn't forsee everything - that's what the amendment process is for.

I'm not even sure why I needed to type that. It's very elementary political science, all found in in the definition of "limited constitutional republic" (which is what the USA was supposed to be) as opposed to "democracy."

The Constitution is exactly what its name implies. It constitutes what it means to be American. The founding fathers were so fed up with previous forms of government, they did an amazingly remarkable thing. They created a new type that is not a government in and of itself, it is a government that truly is "of the people".
These framers were so ingenious, they built a "system of checks and balances" into it. This causes it to be EXTREMELY hard to change (By amendment). What makes it so hard to change is the fact that any amendments must be passed by the majority of both the house and the senate. Supposedly, controlled by "We the people".
Since it is so hard to change, it invariably ends up something like this: Some wacko politician takes a huge contribution from such and such organization. He then scratches their back by proposing such and such a bill that gets signed into law that benifits them. Person X, who sees the unfairness and UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the law challenges it in court (The judicial branch). Lawyer Q, along with Judge Z, and a bunch of other special intrest groups (who just might have stock in such and such corporation) determine that the law is ok.
Guess what? The Constitution (what it means to be American) has just been soiled. There are thousands of laws out there that are totally against what it means to be American.
EXAMPLE: 2nd Amendment: 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!
Don't like this? Hey let's pass the original 1934 Gun Control Act the way I described earlier. Got a problem? Hey, we'll just argue about the framer's INTENT. Clear enough what they intended? We'll just argue what the word MILITIA means.
In short, the Constitution is the ultimate and undiluted core of being American. It's what this nation was founded upon. It's so sad to see it trashed, watered down, and constantly IGNORED, over some petty semantics and bullcrap loopholes created by pond scum politicians.

So what if you are born American, grow up in America, but don't agree with the Constitution? What if you think that parts of it are archaic, or out-moded, or just plain wrong? Does mean you are being un-American simply because you happen to disagree with a 200 year old piece of paper?

If you think so, then you can use your First Amendment right of free speech to advocate Amendment(s) to make it more to your liking, and IF you can win enough popular support they'll pass, though it'll take a while; the process is deliberately slow. Too slow? Then push for an Amendment to speed it up. I'll fight you on that, but you have the right to do it and I won't say otherwise. Heck, you could even have one that says: "The Government of the United States is hereby abolished."

The Founders weren't so silly as to think the Constitution would never need to be modified to fit changing conditions. That's why they included an amendment process. So, no, thinking the Constitution should be changed isn't un-American at all. But IMHO seeking to subvert the Constitution in the ways LFTHNDTHRDS mentions instead of using the amendment process IS un-American.

This is a great point. It's almost ironic though when you think about it: During John Adam's presidency, he passed the Sedition Act, an act which prohibited the slandering of the nation's new government. Anyone who slandered the government was subject to various penalties for it. This was basically saying that if you slandered the government and constitution, you were treasonous and, well, "un-american."

The issue of free speech as we see it is an American product. The key point is about libel and whether truth is a defense in slander cases.

The John Peter Zenger Case in colonial America was a breakthrough case in this way, but the issue of truth being a defense in cases of libel was not clearly settled.

Link

Free speech does not absolve us of responsibility from the consequences of our speech. (Schenck v. United States)

Good point. I think it should be called, "free speech to a certain degree: once you get too free with speech, you get sued."