Constitution

[ItsZippy]

When debating online, I often hear the US Constitution brought up. I'm British and, as such, do not have any written, binding constitution. Though I do see the advantages of having a written constitution, I feel that it's limited nature causes difficulties. What are your views? Is a written, binding constitution better; or a more flexible constitution?

 

[katy perry is hot]

Well the US constitution can be amended remember. Prohibition of alcohol was an amendment to the constitution that was later repealed. I think it's important to have a constitution because it sets out specific things that cannot be changed and specific things the government cannot do (ie no restricting religion/speech)

 

[ItsZippy]

Yes, but making an amendment takes a incredibly long time. While I see the advantages of having a set of rights that cannot be changed, I do feel that it is rather limiting. It also prevents any meaningful discussion of moral/rights based issues. Too often do people ignore a suggestion because it is unconstitutional, when it could be beneficial.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Yes, but making an amendment takes a incredibly long time. While I see the advantages of having a set of rights that cannot be changed, I do feel that it is rather limiting. It also prevents any meaningful discussion of moral/rights based issues. Too often do people ignore a suggestion because it is unconstitutional, when it could be beneficial.

If it's an amendment that everyone agrees on overwhelmingly it could be passed within a matter of days. How does it prevent meaningful discussion? If you think about what the US constitution promises, it's really all things that the government CANNOT do to you.

 

[ItsZippy]

Yes, and I do see the benefits of that. However, the British law contains the Human Rights Act, so the limitations are still there. A party would be mad to attempt to remove basic rights, as it would face massive opposition and lose power. An unwritten constitution means that, should the need arise, we can change legislation quickly and easily.

It prevents meaningful discussion because it's used as a wall to hide behind. I have had debates over moral issues with Americans online (not specifically here) where the constitution is used as a trump card. It means that we cannot discuss potentially helpful changes, as they are deemed 'unconstitutional'.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Yes, and I do see the benefits of that. However, the British law contains the Human Rights Act, so the limitations are still there. A party would be mad to attempt to remove basic rights, as it would face massive opposition and lose power. An unwritten constitution means that, should the need arise, we can change legislation quickly and easily.

It prevents meaningful discussion because it's used as a wall to hide behind. I have had debates over moral issues with Americans online (not specifically here) where the constitution is used as a trump card. It means that we cannot discuss potentially helpful changes, as they are deemed 'unconstitutional'.

What potential changes? What you're saying seems to have potential to make sense but I really am unsure of what changes could be made without the constitution.

 

[Gimgak]

I don't see censoring what we can say, think, or write (even more) as good "potential changes".

 

[katy perry is hot]

I don't see censoring what we can say, think, or write (even more) as good "potential changes".

Well maybe zippy is talking about a different amendment? I don't know... let's hear him out.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

An unwritten constitution means that, should the need arise, we can change legislation quickly and easily.

How is that an advantage?

 

[Justin M]

An unwritten constitution means that, should the need arise, we can change legislation quickly and easily.

The 18th amendment proves why that is not a good idea. Constitutions are one thing that need to leave as little to interpretation as possible, and be as inflexible as possible.

 

[The Visitors]

I think as long as your country keeps things normally stable, fare, and does not restrict any basic human rights.... You should be good. History has recorded countries with and without an official document outlining things, can either help its people or turn on its people. So I would think the chances are 50/50 either way.

 

[ItsZippy]

I don't see censoring what we can say, think, or write (even more) as good "potential changes".

On the issue of censorship, whether you agree with it or not, it is a contentious issue. I think that having something that is so disputed set in stone is a backward step. You may disagree with censorship in all circumstances but, until a large majority of the population agrees with you, putting it in a fixed constitution could be very dangerous.

The British constitution has undergone rapid change over the past decade and a half. In 1997, we devolved power to Wales and Scotland, we recently gave them more powers; in 1998 we introduces regional assemblies; how far rights must be protected in the face of terrorism has been an ongoing debate; the House of Lords has undergone a lot of change, such as the removal of hereditary peers; there is ongoing debate about further reform to the House of Lords; our membership of the EU regularly changes, in terms of new treaties; there's a referendum on changing the voting system in the summer. A constantly changing constitution must be flexible enough to allow this to happen smoothly. In the majority of cases, this change happens for the better; without a flexible constitution, it's impossible.

Look at how the US votes. If the 26 least populated states in America voted as a bloc, they'd be the controlling party, with about 17% of the vote. With a flexible constitution, that would be easy to rectify; without one, it is a lot more hassle.

 

[katy perry is hot]

I don't see censoring what we can say, think, or write (even more) as good "potential changes".

On the issue of censorship, whether you agree with it or not, it is a contentious issue. I think that having something that is so disputed set in stone is a backward step. You may disagree with censorship in all circumstances but, until a large majority of the population agrees with you, putting it in a fixed constitution could be very dangerous.

The British constitution has undergone rapid change over the past decade and a half. In 1997, we devolved power to Wales and Scotland, we recently gave them more powers; in 1998 we introduces regional assemblies; how far rights must be protected in the face of terrorism has been an ongoing debate; the House of Lords has undergone a lot of change, such as the removal of hereditary peers; there is ongoing debate about further reform to the House of Lords; our membership of the EU regularly changes, in terms of new treaties; there's a referendum on changing the voting system in the summer. A constantly changing constitution must be flexible enough to allow this to happen smoothly. In the majority of cases, this change happens for the better; without a flexible constitution, it's impossible.

Look at how the US votes. If the 26 least populated states in America voted as a bloc, they'd be the controlling party, with about 17% of the vote. With a flexible constitution, that would be easy to rectify; without one, it is a lot more hassle.

I found it really interesting that the UK changed the supreme court from the house of lords to an actual supreme court... and as for the US and other hardline constitutional governments, what's important is that the constitution stops the tyranny of the majority in a way. If 70 percent of Americans wanted there to be no mosque by ground zero, and wanted to use the government to stop it, they can't, because of our constitution (and I'll tell you right now voting to repeal the first amendment would never happen) If the president wanted to, he couldn't, because he'd be impeached for violating his oath to protect and defend the constitution. In England, if a mosque were being built, and 70 percent of your country didn't want it there, there would be nothing to stop that.

 

[ItsZippy]

I see your point, a written constitution would prevent that from happening. However, doesn't the inflexibility mean that your country can not easily change how it is run? I'm of the opinion that all good things constantly change and adapt; a written constitution significantly impedes this.

 

[katy perry is hot]

I see your point, a written constitution would prevent that from happening. However, doesn't the inflexibility mean that your country can not easily change how it is run? I'm of the opinion that all good things constantly change and adapt; a written constitution significantly impedes this.

Like what would we have to change and adapt to though? What is the constitution stopping us from changing?

 

[ItsZippy]

Look at my post a few back - the British constitution is constantly changing; that's not possible in America.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Look at my post a few back - the British constitution is constantly changing; that's not possible in America.

Sure it is we can amend our constitution.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

A free state must be constitutional. There has to be a list of things that the government simply can't do. At the very least, you need to have a bill of rights that is extremely difficult to change. That way, the government cannot alienate the rights of its citizenry.

 

[Gimgak]

A free state must be constitutional. There has to be a list of things that the government simply can't do. At the very least, you need to have a bill of rights that is extremely difficult to change. That way, the government cannot alienate the rights of its citizenry.

in theory, but really it don't do sheet. Your rights can be taken away at any time.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

A free state must be constitutional. There has to be a list of things that the government simply can't do. At the very least, you need to have a bill of rights that is extremely difficult to change. That way, the government cannot alienate the rights of its citizenry.

in theory, but really it don't do sheet. Your rights can be taken away at any time.

That's true. I never said it worked. However, if there were no bill of rights, then they wouldn't even have to pretend to honour it; we'd really be screwed if that were the case.