E Pluribus Unum?

1. 82

   Stephen Tomkinsonposted 3 years ago

   As a foreigner, perhaps it's not my place to comment on the curious situation in the United States. However, I have close ties to the country - my wife is American - and I care deeply for it.
   The constant interpretations and re-interpretations of the Constitution suggest that an eighteenth-century document is no longer fit for purpose. We are seeing a rift in American society that is getting deeper, and therefore more divisive, every day.
   How can common ground be found? If it can't, what does the future hold?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your inquiry, Stephen.
      
      I do not think that the Constitution is irrelevant, it has always involved how and who interprets the intent of 18th century men. That, which is really a challenge in itself. Too many concepts are beyond the 18th century, its intellectuals and much of its ideals, for strict interpretation as conservative here are so warm and fuzzy about.
      
      We need to be speaking of main themes and broader interpretations as even if we can interpret what lies in the minds of those dead for over 200 years, who is to say that their views and interpretations from an 18th century standpoint would be without error when there is the attempt to apply them to the issues of this century.

      replyreport
   2. 76

      tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Why open Pandora's box Stephen ha-ha
      
      Being a new student some five or so years now as compared to many on this forum today, therefore always open to correction to consider. The way I see it is the main body of the Constitution is how the government is set-up with its protocol, procedure, limitations, and liberties. Hard to argue with those since empirical evidence seems mostly to validate that structure. To my knowledge it is rarely contested, yet, again, open to correction to be considered.
      
      The constant interpretations mentioned in the OP from my knowledge both historically and present day deals with the amendments guiding both states rights, individual rights, and civil liberties. Those cases of relevance have been at times monumental as well as contentious.
      
      So, the bottom line as I see it with the OP quote "The constant interpretations and re-interpretations of the Constitution suggest that an eighteenth-century document is no longer fit for purpose." rings false to me IMO. After all it set up a government that has endured some 233 years now.
      
      The constitution has the notoriety of being the oldest and the shortest written constitution of some 4,400 words. Interesting to say the least. 
      "Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world's longest surviving written charter of government." as quoted from our government Senate website. To me that is hard to argue with as to its effectiveness.
      
      As a side note, again in my view, the fact that those amendments are perhaps in a constant challenge is an attribute to growth as a nation of people as well as being governed by the people as a representative Republic through Democracy. Alas, with any growth comes growing pains as maturity arrives while that maturity is in the far distance as I see it.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Fayetteville Fayeposted 3 years ago

   Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps if we quit trying to find ways for the government to control people by violating the Constitution we wouldn't be so obsessed with it.
      
      Perhaps the largest purpose of that document is to limit government and what it can do.  And that is an anathema to a great many people that find Big Government, with Big Control, to be a good thing.

      replyreport
3. 82

   Stephen Tomkinsonposted 3 years ago

   Interesting replies, thank you for taking the time.
   The strengths (and not inconsiderable weaknesses) of a country such as mine - the UK - have grown slowly over time. Our rights are enshrined by legal precedent and not by a written constitution. This organic growth has some advantages over the Constitutional organization of the United States. Nobody can say that something is unconstitutional.
   ( the Constitution of San Marino 1600 is still in force )

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Does that mean that a judicial ruling is set in stone and can never be reversed (at least if it is quite old - I'm sure you have an appeal process)?  Can you create a new law that effectively reverses that legal precedent as times and needs chage?

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Stephen Tomkinsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness, hello. Nothing is set in stone. Society changes and laws change with it.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            How do you justify that with "rights are enshrined by legal precedent"?  In our system there are procedures for changing the constitution, but if legal precedent (obviously unchangeable) is used rather than a flexible document, how do you change? 
            
            To me, from the other side of the pond, this seems contradictory.  It obviously happens, but how?

            replyreport
4. 82

   Stephen Tomkinsonposted 3 years ago

   In answer to Wilderness' question:
   Legal precedent exists until it is superseded by a new legal ruling. In Britain, Parliament makes the laws although the government is clearly divided into executive, legislative, and judicial branches- overseen by, amongst other bodies, the Supreme Court.
   You might like to dip into the following YouTube video to see parliament in action. Looks chaotic but it works (usually).
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEJuJa-uJnU

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Then legal precedent, the foundation of your law, is there until a new law is made, reversing it.
      
      This sounds very much like what our liberal faction sees our Constitution as; something to be bent and changed whenever they decide they want something that is not allowed.  I really don't see much difference between the two; either way (Constitution or legal precedent) is set aside whenever it is desirable to change it.

      replyreport
5. 82

   Stephen Tomkinsonposted 3 years ago

   Yes, more or less right. Parliament enacts a new law when thought necessary and when it has passed a vote. The judicial system will accept it and build up another body of precedent. It is, however, very difficult to enact a law without public support.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Again, sounds very much like the US system, with the primary difference that "precedent" is replaced by a single document outlining the basics of law.  Our Constitution is changeable as well, and it is difficult without public support as well, too.

      replyreport
6. 71

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

   I see the divisiveness in the US as being part of the process historically. Unfortunately in my lifetime the sides have made their own agendas so closely linked to their own identities that there is no room for compromise, which is the hallmark of our system. Today compromise is seen as a bad thing while I-win-You-lose is admired. But the pendulum swings and we tend to right ourselves - eventually.

   replyreport