Yuratuhl wrote:
France has a constitution too. It's been a constitutional government since 1791. The primary difference is the current version is from 1958, because they come up with a new one every time the government realizes the previous version is too outdated and no amount of amending can save it. I suppose that sort of approach doesn't really appeal to hardline traditionalists in this country who really like the idea that their constitution is older than everyone else's and would rather it not change, since it's a symbol or something.
But yeah, all these constitutional governments go about it in different ways. Here, the constitution is difficult to change and the articles are basically set in stone, which leads to the country having to rely on the Supreme Court to change it with the times. In France, the only real difference is the legislature changes it instead of the courts. Ideally, that would be done here too, but the US Constitution really only changes for really drastic things everyone can agree on, and those tend to happen like once every 40 years.
You speak about the dozens of re-writes of the French Constitution and act as if we couldn't do the same here in America. We could, ya know, it would just take a little effort on the parts of all legislators and states. I don't recall the current Constitution prohibiting the amending of Article 5 to make the 2/3 or State Ratification a lesser bar to reach. Frankly, I think most Americans are fine with the Constitution as it stands and it's not because we're traditionalists or because of the symbolism; it defines the limitations of our government and it affords Americans (and states) some basic freedoms which can't be taken away unless there is a constitutional amendment. The framers (and, unfortunately, few Americans) know and understand the importance of the Constitution and perhaps that's why the framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution - since the Constitution is over-arching and will affect every American it only makes sense that a 2/3 vote and 3/4 state ratification would be necessary... that way, it'd be more difficult to re-write the constitution every two years when there's a congressional shift in power and it would have acceptance by the wide majority.
Edit: Do you propose the USA hold another Constitutional Convention?Also, I think it's important to say that the US Judicial system/Supreme Court doesn't change the constitution; the most they can do is set a precedent through an interpretation or ruling, although the Supreme Court isn't always bound by stare decisis so nothing is really ever permanently changed by them. The actual changing of the constitution is done by the Congress and states.
Jubbergun wrote:
At least slaves counted as 1/3 a person; women didn't count for shit.
Slaves were 3/5, yes? Also, women still shouldn't count for shit. When I campaign for President I'll push that the 19th Amendment be repealed... just to piss off all the bra-burners. (Mayo, I'm fucking joking so you can put that sexist card back in your bag of tired tricks and tactics.)
