I never understood why Americans treat their Constitution like some holy book
I never understood why Americans treat their Constitution like some holy book
245 comments
-
How dare you try and change an amendment
-
Reminds me of this classic Jim Jefferies bit
-
Up until about a hundred years ago we were doing it all the time.
-
-
Because the constitution is the document that lays out the foundation for all of our legal rights and the limitations placed on the government that are intended to keep it accountable to the people. It's not perfect, but it does cover a hell of a lot, even more gets expanded on through legislation and the courts, and when necessary it can be (and has been) amended.
But it's also just ink and parchment. It can't do anything if the government decides to ignore it. It's the people who give power to the constitution. The more it is valued by the people across the country, throughout the political spectrum, both inside and outside the halls of power, the more likely it will be that those protections are respected. And when those protections are violated, people are far more likely to push back. And many within the government are also more likely to push back. That's literally the only reason we didn't have an overturned election, because numerous people at all levels of government said no, many despite being aligned with the assholes that were trying to stay in power.
So yes, I would very much prefer it if everyone would treat the constitution with some reverence if that's what it takes. The alternative is not pretty.
-
Maybe.
But we don't have people storming the capital in an attempt to overthrow elections here (UK) and we don't have a formal constitution.
The two things might be unrelated.
-
That is not the issue at all though, you can change the constitution and still hold it in reverence, in fact it would probably be easier to have reverence for it if that was possible.
The problem is that all political constructs does become antiquated over time. It needs to be updated and modernised through amendments or even a rewrite, but the way the US political system is dictated to be makes it virtually impossible to do now. Even mundane legislation cannot be passed any longer, let alone amendments. It is a problem which should have been taken care of long ago, but now it is basically too late for even the slightest attempts at tweaking it.
-
-
This comment and this title are two separate things in my opinion. I don't give a shit what the founding fathers wanted either. That's why we've amended the Constitution several times. The originalist viewpoint of the Constitution is ridiculous and completely counter even to how the founders wanted the document to act, funny enough.
As for why it's treated like a holy book -- it's basically a set of rules for our government and what laws are okay and which laws aren't okay. Think of it like a social contract that everyone signed. It's how we've agreed to live together and treat each other. Unlike a holy book though it can and has been changed.
It's quite literally the legal foundation of the country.
-
I don’t give a shit what the founding fathers wanted either. That’s why we’ve amended the Constitution several times.
Repeating myself here, but, the founders wanted us to adjust the Constitution over time, to meet the needs of the current generation.
-
Right, and we have, but the bar being high seems reasonable.
-
-
-
Well the very first and most important thing they wanted was to give you the right to say that or whatever you want about them.
Before they enshrined that concept in their document, saying such things about members of your government would get you jailed or executed.
-
Sounds like it was useful. Now it seems like it just differentiates us from countries that can do something about the spread of hate.
Not against the Constitution, but the Freedom of Speech **is **perhaps the most anachronistic freedom if you look at much of Europe.
-
Sounds like it was useful.
It still is? Unless you think someone should be able to go to jail for making a joke about a government official.
Not against the Constitution, but the Freedom of Speech **is **perhaps the most anachronistic freedom if you look at much of Europe.
Yeah you say that when a party you support is in power.
-
-
-
Why? Because a lot of their ideas were good. Creating a system of government that is immune or even resilient to corruption is very difficult, but the US has done pretty good all things considered.
-
One of their ideas I personally think would be amazing: allegedly, Thomas Jefferson predicted the Construction would only last less than twenty years before we would completely overhaul our core document of governance. I believe rebuilding the specific details every couple decades would've helped tremendously....
-
Yeah but a lot were also bad which is why it’s stupid when people act like the opinions of the founding fathers should matter more than the opinions of contemporary Americans when the same founding fathers were smart enough to realize the constitution should be a living document and not a holy totem to use as a club to stifle any progress.
-
I think there were only a couple bad ideas, which have been mostly fixed by amendments. It is a living document, it has changed over time. You could argue that it should be easier to change, but there would be consequences for that too.
-
-
It has done a horrible job of it all things considered. Basically all the fabled checks and balances have turned out to be based on nothing but good faith. The founders refused to consider that partisanship would evolve at all, let alone to the extremes it has turned into today.
Lots of other Western democracies are doing a lot better job at it, not least because they have been allowed to evolve and change with the times, while the core of the US political system has petrified in all its archaism.
-
Creating a system of government that is immune or even resilient to corruption is very difficult, but the US has done pretty good all things considered.
What cave were you living in between 2016 and 2020?
-
Creating a system of government that is immune or even resilient to corruption is very difficult, but the US has done pretty good all things considered.
Really? You think so, even tho we are essentially an Oligarchy with a huge amount of corruption, especially in the Supreme Court
-
We made it less than a century before the first civil war. That's an epic failure in my book.
-
Is your book a picture book?
-
-
-
I like the constitution because I don't want Matt Gaetz to be able to propose whatever nonsense he wants. It's not a perfect document, but it enshrines certain fundamental protections that really shouldn't be fucked with.
-
In any governing system, something has to be supreme. Something has to be the final word in settling disputes. There are basically three options: Fiat, convention, or consensus. Consensus is really only practical in small groups, so we can put that option to the side. What remains is the choice between rule by the whims of a person or group, and the rule of law.
Despite their many flaws, the founders of the American republic were at least smart enough to realize that there would be a constant temptation to set aside the rule of law and let a person dictate things. So the foundational law (the constitution) was made sacrosanct in the way that the king had been. To lose the rule of law is to lose the republic, and return to tyranny.
-
Because according to our education system, we're the only country that has a constitution, and we used it to beat the greatest evil: taxing rich people.
-
WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Where is this narrative of intentionally forgetting that the grievance was specifically over having no say in the fucking matter despite being the ones who actually have to live with the decisions coming from‽ Westminster‽
This narrative is like calling the Haitian revolution an uprising against having to respect property rights!
-
Except you know the Haitian revolution was a slave revolt and the American Revolution was a slave owners revolt, so a little different.
The taxes they had grievances with were mostly for their "defense" against french encroachment... The colonial governments also had problems with the fact that Britain trying to balance peace with the natives didn't plan to expand beyond the Appalachian mountains and they wanted more...
-
-
-
The Forefathers didn't come close to living up to their own words. We are still striving to meet them hundreds of years later. It's a good goal.
-
Equally however a lot of that stipulations make no sense.
For example the gun laws were developed back when firing a shot required about a 45-minute reload session. I somehow doubt that automatic rifles were predicted and considered.
I highly suspect they thought that the American people would be intelligent enough to make their own constitution when the current one became invalid, sadly not.
-
Just as the founding fathers intended
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended
-
-
-
Because many of those men were flat-out geniuses. They penned a fine constitution and outlined ideals we should strive to achieve. That doesn't mean they knew the best way to legislate modern issues though , like the internet. That brings us back to their genius. They outlined a process to revise, or amend if you will, the laws of the land. The biggest problem that they didn't foresee is that America would regress into fervent tribalism, completely unwilling to amend anything that might benefit another tribe. So we're stuck, locked in the year 1992 when the last amendment was written. Actually that's not completely true. Many of them did foresee the dangers of a bicameral partisan system, and issued abundant warnings about it. Unfortunately they really didn't anticipate just how insulated and shameless many of our politicians would become, probably because tar and feathers in the public square was still a possibility back then.
-
Thing is, yesterday's geniuses are today's average person, average intelligence is going up and there's tons more people on the planet today vs back then, that's a whole lot of geniuses that could create a much better constitution but that are unable to because some people at the other end of the spectrum act like some dude 250 years ago could predict the world we would live in today (when they in fact predicted that the Constitution would need to be amended in the future).
-
Nope, the political leaders that founded the USA were extremely well educated and would probably put the average modern person to shame on any topic or skill that wasn't invented after their death. Motherfuckers these days can barely read and write.
The average dumbass knows how to Google stuff now, and feels like they are smart because they can operate a touch screen device and access information.
But if you take that same "smart" average modern dumbass back to colonial USA times and they would not know how to survive at all. They would be like "where's my cheeseburger? Where's my shower?" and just fucking die of bacterial infection from stubbing their toe probably. Those old dudes were building their own houses, farming their own food, writing long political essays and shit. They were out there inventing all the stuff we take for granted now.
-
average intelligence is going up
Not anymore. Average intelligence in Western countries plateaud and started dropping around 10 years ago.
-
-
The forefathers had some of the most sensible ideology in the history of humankind. What other country established limits on the power of their government as a foundational document?
They're still very sound principles to this day.
Unfortunately our current government doesn't concern themselves with those principles.
But I will agree with what was likely the point of this post, which is that the Constitution is not and was never supposed to be timeless, and the founders would agree with that too.
-
Every country with a constitution?
-
Many constitutions of many modern liberal democracies are modeled or inspired off of the US Constitution. Though now newer ones are modeled instead of its derivatives (kind of lending credence to this thread's message of, maybe we should update the constitution more).
-
Shhh, you're screwing up their circle jerk.
-
-
established limits on the power of their government as a foundational document
I'd argue that's a blessing and a curse.
The framers were coming off a monarchy. They saw government power as dangerous and thought that it had to be limited. But they didn't really consider that other groups might gain greater power than governments.
Unfortunately, we have exactly that problem. Organizations with sufficient money often rival governments for power.
The checks and balances that were designed to protect ordinary citizens from government also protect large multinational corporations and ultra rich families and individuals. The result is often that those powerful non-government actors can often subvert government and ultimately cause the same, or even worse, problems.
-
The result is often that those powerful non-government actors can often subvert government and ultimately cause the same, or even worse, problems.
Only if we treat corporations like they are citizens/people, and money as speech.
We could legislate those away in a heartbeat, if "We the People" wanted to.
-
-
I will agree with what was likely the point of this post, which is that the Constitution is not and was never supposed to be timeless, and the founders would agree with that too.
-
Also, the US Constitution is a second attempt. Operating briefly under the Articles of Confederation outright did not work because the federal government couldn't fund itself. They threw that away and created the present system which almost outright doesn't work. That's progress.
-
-
The constitution is the foundation of the entire US legal system. Without it the whole thing collapses.
-
There is so much nuance to it, and it outlines a good system. However it is based on assumptions about the integrity, awareness, and independence of thought each citizen would have that have been systematically undermined.
-
Yes, but that doesn't mean it is infallible.
-
I mean we wouldnt need governments and legal systems if anything was infallible.
-
-
True as that may be, the sanctity it is held to is immensely harmful, as it kills any chance of improvement and progress.
-
-
A lot of money is spent in order to propagandize Americans into thinking they're living in the greatest country in the world (tm), and the weird veneration of the founding document, and the people who wrote it is a big part of it.
-
There’s a lot of historical perspective you’re overlooking. The Roman Republic was a relatively advanced society with a republican democracy founded in 509 BC. After the republic fell in 44 BC it wouldn’t be for another 1,800 years that we got democracy again in 1776 in the USA. The constitution borrows ideas from famous liberal scholars like John Locke, Rousseau, John Stuart Mill to create a system that would not under the letter of the law let democracy die ever again.
-
-
Either the constitution has the ultimate authority in government, or our presidents do. And have you see the kind of people we elect president?
-
There are other forms of authority, even in the US.
-
No there's not.
-
-
I don't think OP is talking about the existence of the constitution, but rather it's about how Americans cite it like it's the Bible.
For example, instead of saying the plain-and-simple "I have free rights to express my opinion" I have seen people saying "The X amendment guarantees freedom of speech" or something like that instead.
It's kinda weird.
-
There are three foundations an argument takes:
-Pathos - Emotion, e.g. "I believe in this argument!"
-Logos - Logic, e.g. "This is the logic behind this argument."
-and Ethos - Authority, e.g. "This is the authority that backs this argument."
Everyone in American politics has emotion behind their arguments and no one cares for logic. So if you say: "I have free rights to express my opinion," or really any other argument, an American will counter with: "Who says that? That isn't a universal given."
-
it’s about how Americans cite it like it’s the Bible.
It is.
Our laws aren't really organized like European countries. Every single law we have can be traced back to the Constitution. All legal authority for all government derives from it. That is literally how our legal system is designed. We don't have to use some vague "I have rights" thing, we can go straight to the source.
No one can argue with the Constitution. If we amend the Constitution to say we must all carry rubber duckies on Tuesdays, then everyone will carry a rubber duckie on Tuesdays. It is the supreme law of the land. If the constitution says something and you don't like it, you have to convince the population to amend it.
-
-
-
This is a pretty ignorant take. We can change the rules whenever we want. This is the whole process of amendments.
-
I would be mildly surprised if there's every another amendment again, very surprised if there's one in our lifetime.
-
Nah, i would 100% believe term limits for supreme court eventually or maybe even repeal/revise of the 16th amendment.... amendment to limit tax dollars used on foreign engagements... amendment to make funding to congress transparent... amendment to put limits on predatory loans.... amendment to officially not allow sitting presidents to run businesses..
Idunno feels like theres still some bipartisan opportunities
-
-
We can change the rules whenever we want.
Can we? The Equal Rights Amendment was supported by a majority of Americans but it never passed.
-
If only they supported it enough to actually show up at the elections that would have affected the chance of the amendment passing.
-
Hmmm, it's been a while since ive read about read about that one, but wasnt there contraversy on the wording of that? Like it could adversely affect womens rights if that were passed or that it is the same protections under the 14th... but last time I checked something like 3/4 of all the states have already ratified the ERA in the states side. It is a weird one
-
-
I think the take has more to do with the rather depressing amount of originalists stocking the courts of American Constitutional law. Like Justice's Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Barrett. Originalism in Constitutional law practice draws it's primary guiding light from the idea that Constitutional law should be adjudicated based on what the perspective of what the authors of the founding documents intentions were. Often this leads to extremely anachronistic takes on the document rather than a concern for the people whom it effects because it treats the country as though the greatest authority is to fictionalized versions of it's authors rather than the needs of it's living citizenry.
The constitution itself is an important document... but it is less important than the principles that guide how it is actively utilized by living justices.
-
That's exactly the problem, it is impossible to change it now. The system itself prevents any more changes because it has become so archaic and corrupt.
-
-
because it's a manufactured reverence for their idea of the country by our education system. Our history classes are laden with U.S. propaganda that makes a lot of Americans think a lot of incorrect things about our history. The infallibility of our founding fathers is one of those things.
-
Because we're taught to in school and everything we're meant to learn about enlightenment ideals and free, critical thinking is contradicted by our nonstop exposure to 'patriotic identity as a brand'. Our football games, our truck commercials, our news stations, everything is stamped with an American flag in the way a church might use iconography of crosses and saints. And since our education system is actually pretty bad at teaching nuance and critical thought, we latch onto it like "yeah, I like America, and I will glorify it because I'm being told to." And then you get into this really lazy binary of ideology as a commodity where people crave the dopamine hit of feeling like they're associated with a 'side', and a side which has all the most DeVaStAtInG hot takes to pwn the other side's strawmen. And then you're in "my country, do or die" territory because some wealthy person in the media is able to "rah rah" you into being a class traitor because of the trivial fandom associations they've taught you to make about culture war issues that actually have nothing to do with you or your day to day life.
-
"Founding fathers"
White man came across the sea He brought us pain and misery He killed our tribes, he killed our creed He took our game for his own need
-
Native Americans were doing a great job at killing their own tribes. Shit was bloody as hell here before the white man
-
-
It's only some Americans that treat it that way. That the way it was written is the only way to ever take it; ignoring the fact it lays down rules for how to change it or add to it, like we have done 27 times in the past.
-
All americans? damn! I guess I missed the american memo from the big american group chat.
guys apparently we're treating the constitution as a holy book now. some random guy on the internet posted an image of text so it must be true.
-
Are you saying that people never read it, and follow those that only grabbed what is of their interest and ignored the rest?
-
The US constitution has helped a lot of people out against the government (think of the police as part of the government as well). Other countries can't talk shit about the people in power or get arrested for speaking their mind, discord gets crushed, and leaders become dictators with ease. The alternatives don't seem better so why not prop up the constitution that gives the people the power to wield against the government.
Unfortunately the people who think it shouldn't be a "living" document that changes over time are usually idiots.
-
Except you know all the times it hasn't you know like the sedition acts, Japanese internment upheld by the supreme court, native displacement, jim crow laws and ongoing system racism, the list goes own.
The protections it provides are on a contingency basis subject to be withdrawn when convenient, it isn't some magic shield against tyranny.
-
You are correct, it isn't a magic shield and that's why it needs to be protected and propped up to some degree. Like any real shield it won't stop everything but the less people believe in it the easier it is to take away. I don't agree with majority rules because that leads to bad things happening so it needs to be balanced out and in a lot of ways what you had gave as examples are when majority ruled. As for sedition, well the US' foundation was started with sedition.
I would rather take something that works most of the time than none of the time.
-
-
Unfortunately the people who think it shouldn't be a "living" document that changes over time are usually idiots.
How can it protect people from the government if it can be reinterpreted at a whim by the government?
-
The checks and balances system, the fact that the lawmakers also need to live under those same laws (I know, I know). Since it is a living document it can be made to be adjusted so there is less confusion or to add new protections. I just woke up so this may seem incoherent and I'm sorry for that.
-
-
-
Because the Founders are easy stakeholders to appeal to. Their words are old and numerous and vague enough to modern ears that you can attribute any reasonable (and many unreasonable) viewpoints you might hold to them; they're all dead, so you can assume they're all happy with you (and equivalently spinning in their graves about
the liberalsthe other side); most people never really learned about the document they wrote in any depth, so you can say it says anything; and everyone is indoctrinated from a young age to deify both the document (making the thought of crossing or "stomping on" it unthinkable) and the Founders themselves. "Ben Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington; fully grown, and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod, and the three of them—Franklin, Washington, and the horse—conducted the entire American Revolution all by themselves."Terribly convenient, really; for those who have no scruples.
-
The worst part is that if they were still alive, they would pretty much agree with this sentiment. As the intention was the Constitution would be a living document that would adapt to fit the needs of the community, instead it is a strict guideline of rules that decide how we live in a society.
-
instead it is a strict guideline of rules that decide how we live in a society.
We've changed it twenty seven times, dumbass
-
-
Take a closer look at any part of the lawbook. Every single change has likely a few regressions. Treat it as sourcecode.
-
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/read-another-book but for tech bros
-
-
"Unfortunately our current government", consults the holy book... vote
-
Believe it or not, there are movements out there that explicitly treat it as a holy document. There are "pocket constitutions" published by Mormons, given their own annotations, and distributed to schools.
-
Its part of the brainwashing to preserve the illusion that they live in a real Democracy even though there has been a duopoly on Power for way over a century and that they are Free even though only a small number of them is born in wealthy enough families that they can actually do what they want, whilst everybody else has to do what they have to merelly to survive and are even constrained in that (for example, if they invade long unused land, to build their home and do subsistence farming there - i.e. try to have freedom via self-sufficiency - they will be kicked when the owner calls the "authorities").
Also treating the Constitution as almost sacred means that people can't challenge or even just criticize the very mathematical rigging that makes Power in their country be controlled by a duopoly (and hence not a Democracy) because it was set down on said Constitution so doing so would be challenging/criticising said "holy" Constitution.
Thinking people should always ponder on the answer for the good old Cui bono? ("Who gains from it?") question (so old it comes in Latin) whenever something or somebody is relentlessly portrayed as beyond questioning.
-
Also treating the Constitution as almost sacred means that people can’t challenge or even just criticize the very mathematical rigging that makes Power in their country be controlled by a duopoly (and hence not a Democracy) because it was set down on said Constitution so doing so would be challenging/criticising said “holy” Constitution.
What the hell does that even mean? If the constitution allows amendments and changes, the inherently means it's built with acknowledged fallibility. The fact that is baked into it means that people can challenge and criticize it. What strawman are you trying to point to?
-
Its part of the brainwashing to preserve the illusion that they live in a real Democracy even though there has been a duopoly on Power for way over a century
People could vote that duopoly out at any time, if they wanted to. And they would do that via democracy.
Also, over the history of the US there's been different parties/powerbases that have come and gone (remember the Whigs party?) and some parties that have shifted from one mindset to another.
So I don't think it's fair to state overall that there's just a static duopoly that is in power and nothing can change that.
You get the government you vote for.
-
You clearly never lived in a country with Proportional vote if you think people in any country, including the US, would just keep on voting for the same two parties if the voting system one was one that reflected the votes of all parties, big and small, equally in, for example, Congress.
No, people can't in practice "vote that duopoly out at any time" because that would require at least 100 million Americans to, somehow, all agree on the same election to vote for the same, entirelly new party, a party which would not have had any meaningful political representation or press coverage until then because even if they had managed 30 million votes the previous election (itself a near impossible feat) they would still not have elected a single representative - in other words, it requires a coordinated political shift with no help from mass media of about 1/3 of the population, something only possible with, quite literally, magic or some kind of Sci-Fi mind control technology.
In the real world, that's a much "possible" in that system as it's possible that a butterfly will cross a piece of paper via quantum tunelling: it's theoretically possible but requires a combination of events of such incredibly low probability that nobody has ever seen it or will ever see it actually happen.
Nah, the only political changes that have happenned in the US for over a century have been of the kind were one of the two power duopoly parties is subverted from the inside, not through the supposedly democratic vote.
-
This is all under the idea that every vote is counted 100% equally in every stance. The idea ignores how presidential primaries start on the east side of the country and the western side has the choices limited by the eastern. It ignores the electoral college, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisment, voter suppression, misinformation, manipulation by other countries, and probably a bunch more I think can't of right now. One of the most reductive ideas I've ever heard is "you get what you vote for". If that were actually true, everything I listed above wouldn't exist.
-
-
-
Americans like to have some sort of unquestionable rules they can point to. Whether it be religion or constitution they want impunity for their actions.
-
It's a document laying down the tenets and laws that our government has to follow and specifies what rights we as citizens have that cannot be infringed. That being said the reason is propaganda. And no. Not all Americans.
-
Why don't we say that about the 2000 year old fucking religious texts. The fuck.
-
Sane people do.
-
Catholicism and Judaism both reformed several times. Non catholic Christians also have a bunch of different reformation, though some are reverting back to more literal interpretations. Islam hasn't had a significant reformation.
-
-
If you mean people interpret it however it best fits their argument then yes, it's just like the bible.
-
I don't know about holy but I definitely see it as the most important document in the American system of government (a Republic if we can keep it).
Literally all authority in America flows from our Constitution. The only reason the President is in charge is because the Constitution says so. The only reason laws passed by Congress are laws is because the Constitution says so. The only reason the judiciary exists as a place to go and settle disputes and apply the laws is because the Constitution says so.
Without the Constitution the only way society would run is by force.
I know that people with Gadsden flags and dog eared copies of Atlas Shrugged think that's how society works today, but it's not. But that's a whole other discussion.
We mostly just agree to abide by the laws which derive their legitimacy from Constitution. If it weren't there, we'd have no foundation. That's why it's like a holy document. Except it's better than a holy book, because there's no claim of infallibility. It is expected to be modified, and it has been modified.
Thomas Jefferson actually expected there to be constitutional conventions on a regular basis to rewrite the thing from time to time. A part of me thinks that might be a good idea. Maybe reconstitute the Congress as two proportional representation parliaments (one with single 8 year terms, one with unlimited 2 year terms or something, people vote for parties not people). Eventually abolish the Second Amendment or at least rewrite it to make it clear that "well regulated" is important, and there can be limits to personal armament. Expand the Fourth to cover modern data creation and storage. Do a better job with patents & copyright. On and on.
-
without the Constitution the United States as we know it would not exist
-
I agree, ideas stand, or fall, on their own, doesn't matter who presents them. No one ever won an argument just saying "because [person] said so", even if they think they did. However, slavery is now illegal and woman (are supposed to) have equal rights because the ideas they implemented made it possible. Question is, will it be enough to stop that stuff from coming back. I'm not optimistic atm.
-
Question is, will it be enough to stop that stuff from coming back. I'm not optimistic atm.
Let's see what a former slave had to say about that.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
--Frederick Douglas
In other words, it's going to be up to us whether it comes back or not. The constitution alone cannot and does not determine the morality of the laws it contains, that's up to the people. The tyrants will always seize as much power as they're able.
-
-
Other than that pesky wording on the 2nd amendment, the US Constitution is pretty good.
-
It includes the electoral college though, which treat's peoples votes differently based on where they live, which is undemocratic.
-
-
Because the whole idea that we escaped religious persecution and then created a country with separation of church and state is bullshit. We're still a majority Christian here and their religion always comes first to them.
-
The Puritans escaped religious persecution in England so they could do the persecuting here instead.
-
-
Because it’s convenient for a segment of the population to act like we still need to be sexist slave owners.
-
that's what happens when you give idiots a voice
-
She ain't wrong
-
Oooh so edgy, I bet your parents were seething when you told them that
-
Americans when faced with statements that goes contrary to their inherent prejudices: "Oh so edgy!".
-
Teenagers when America: MeRiCa bAd, i am so cool and different
-
-
-
Free speech and permission to carry guns. "Real" Americans love their guns.
-
Those are amendments. They aren't an original part of the Constitution.
-
-
It is the best Constitution that has ever existed, based on the results of its framework creating the most prosperous and free country in the world. I'm glad we treat it as it should be, the final authority on the laws of the USA.
245 comments