Hi All!


I do not know much about the American Constitution, which seems to be very important for americans, always quoting it and seemingly use it as some sort of "world truth". But two members in another debate was seemingly arguing about Thomas Jeffersons former "sins", and said something i think we all should have a debate about:


Taken from the "Jena" Topic:





Now, this is really worth a topic all by itself (notice bolded part). The U.S Constitution was indeed written over 200 years ago, and is quite outdated by todays standard.

But we dont have slaves anymore (eeehhh?, and we let woman vote (whhaaat?), and we say blacks are Equal (uuuhhhH?), that does not make any sense, as the members of United States (americans) follow a creed they call "The American Constitution" which is 200 years old, having outdated laws and opinion that does not fit a contemporary civilized society, but ignore the "obviously nasty parts" of our ancient past? Is this not a bit hypocritical?


If the American Constitution are to be followed, whats wrong with Slavery? We did that 200 years ago, so whats the difference? If our "Slave" views are (have to) to be amended to todays views, why not the Constitution (removing everyones 'right' to carry weapons, as a (touchy) example)?

The criticism that the Constitution is outdated is hardly justified. To the contrary, there have been twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution that reflect the changes over time; and there are proposals to further amend it even today. In the example cited, blacks were imported and sold as slaves both before and after the adoption of the Constitution; and, under the laws in effect at the time, were treated as property. It was not until the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in 1864, and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, that they were granted constitutional rights. Further, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 extended equal protection to cover all persons. However, it took almost a century before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through which such rights were made effective in any meaningful way; and so it’s not the Constitution, but rather Congress that should be criticized.

Yet, the landowning white males still remain a majority in this country. In fact, most of congress is made up of them. They choose which amendsments are passed, which laws go where. It saddens me, that over the course of two hundred years, this has not changed.

Nemo is right; amendments were made to keep the constitution from becoming outdated. However, safeguards were put in place as well, in order to ensure that the constitution did not become too easy to change. This, coupled with the obstinancy of today's congress, almost ensures that little to nothing changes in our holiest of holy documents.

THis has to change, and soon. With a society as volatile as america's the laws must keep pace with the current values. Otherwise, what worth do they have?

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a a s s —a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51 (1838)
__________________________________________

I think akalae's reply underscores the difficulties in dealing with the problems of society as a monolithic institution. The law, which defines our rights, does not exist in a vacuum; but only within the framework of established social order. Society is a dynamic (not a static) structure; but at the same time it represents man’s resistence to change. In this, one must be mindful that the progress of every civilization has been a constant struggle to bring stability to an uncertain world. The invention of banking and credit brought standards of reliance and accountability in trade and commerce; while government and laws based on precedent provided some predictability in applying the rules of social intercourse; and established religion perpetuated the myth of the triumph of good over evil. The law is but one form of social expression (e.g., the arts, sciences, business and finance, law and government, etc.) that exists as an integrated system; one cannot abstract it from the established social order. It is self-reflective, viz., it is a reflection of societal values. Is the law fair, or just? No. Is the law, as Mr. Bumble says in Oliver Twist, “a a s s - a idiot” (is it blind to experience that men use it to their own perverse ends)? Yes. But that merely begs the question; for to say that the law is bad is to say that the society it serves is bad, and, ultimately, that man is bad. As with any man-made institution, the law comes cap-a-pie with all the faults and failings of human nature. Would you change things, you must change man; and human nature being what it is, that is not likely to happen so long as man exists on this earth.