Thoughts on why we shouldn’t care what other countries think about our Constitution:
The other main criticism seems to be that the Rest of The World Doesn’t Like It Anymore. Again, so what? America is an outlier on many issues. That’s why people move here. Instead of taking shots, the New York Times should be proud of this. America is the only nation in the world, for example, in which one can more or less say whatever one likes, and in which the individual’s right to free expression trumps all other concerns. Here we are not subject to arbitrary government balancing acts, at least when it comes to speech. NR’s own Mark Steyn knows as well as I do what happens when otherwise democratic countries incorporate more “modern” attitudes into their charters. If America is different from the rest of the world, then we should say Good. We do not need the approval of Saudi Arabia.
Coming from abroad, I react with a particular horror to the casual way in which many dismiss America’s backbone. If this country should fall, those of us who believe in American values simply have nowhere else in the world to go. It is highly unlikely that a constitution like America’s will surface again. By virtue of Providence or a quirk of history or whatever you will, the United States has been afforded a uniquely brilliant document. The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 provided history with perhaps its only instance of Platonic philosopher kings doing what Plato suggested they might. That the revolution — more of a restoration, really — was hijacked by a small, salutary clique of brilliant men who did not have to refer too closely to public sentiment (publics are not very good at drawing up constitutions) and had an extremely solid understanding of history and political philosophy should be celebrated. It gave America a work of art, and we would do well not to presume that we have such painters among us today, or that, even if we do, they would be given access to the canvas.
We built America because we didn’t want to be them. Those living here who do (like editorial writers and so-called journalists at the New York Times), should go live there instead of screwing up this country.
Editorial writers and so-called journalists?
I can think of at least one Supreme Court Justice who needs to move to a foreign country. Let’s say, South Africa for instance.
I still can’t understand why people who think that things like food, water, shelter, and medical care are “rights” don’t seem to grasp that that means someone else must be enslaved in order to provide them. What other living creature has the means of survival handed to them with no effort required?
In my more cynical moments, I think they do understand. Tyranny and slavery were the norm throughout human history, across all times and cultures. The so-called “progressives” want to return to the norm. Either the notion of liberty frightens them personally (i.e., they don’t want the responsibility that goes with it), or else they believe that unspecified “others” are incapable of exercising it properly.
Knowing many “progressives” and having been one in my naive youth, I’d say you might be giving them too much credit for thinking. I believe most of them sincerely do not want tyranny and slavery; they really want the world to be a better, safer, happier place. The problem is that they hold, simultaneously, many fuzzy, contradictory, and plain wrong ideas about what that means, and how to get it, and they don’t think too deeply on the consequences of all those fuzzy and contradictory ideas being realized.
Heck I have no problem with other countries thinking about and hopefully borrowing ideas from our Constitution.
After all, we’re not really using or following it anymore ourselves.
I learned at the tender age of six that anyone who says “Do it my way or I won’t be your friend!” isn’t my friend and really doesn’t have any valid arguments for doing it that way.
I suspect that the editorial staff at the New York Times are suffering from a massive case of arrested development … which may explain why so many other political and philosophical positions they hold are so infantile.
Western liberalism is synonymous with arrested development. The Democrats are the Veruca Salt Party. They don’t know how daddy gets them the things that they want, but they want them now.
As near as I can tell the US Constitution is a driver’s manual which to change at your own peril.
Constitutions of other countries seem to be policy statements which are easily changeable by those in charge to address the issue de jour.
Glenn Reynolds has written a law review article about the Constitution as an operating system. Unfortunately, most countries seem to think that it’s a smorgasbord of convenient apps.
“Unfortunately, most countries seem to think that it’s a smorgasbord of convenient apps.”
So do a huge number of US voting citizens….some to be used when convenient..others to be tossed.
My favorite analogy along these lines is ctrl-alt-del = 2nd Amendment. Or maybe it is “kill -9”, but that might be interpreted as uncivil.
No unixisms, or we’ll be persecuted for killing rogue zombie child daemons without finding their parents.
Windows no longer lets you kill zombies, on the assumption that they’re hung on a service that might not be able to survive finally having data ready for a no longer existing caller. I guess their services can’t survive knock-knock jokes either.
Microsoft was upset that everybody was having to shoot zombies in the head, so they gave the zombies ballistic helmets, Lexan face shields, and the +2 Shield of Eternal Live.
The same thing happens to governments when their economic bugs put too many people on the dole, their repeated attempts to get people off the dole irritates some of the users, so they make the dole unkillable.
“Every other country in the world has central banking, why doesn’t the US?” is a common catch cry of the left. The right’s response is “uhhh, duhhh, we don’t know.” and the Libertarian response is “End The Fed. End The Fed”. If you’d like to hear some of the history, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxcjT8T3EGU
Ugh, I just lost a huge post. Reading through the original paper (which I can’t post, but have attempted to link to my name), it does strike me as rather bizarre that people aren’t paying more attention to the US Constitution.
For example, the average constitution has a 38% chance of being revised each year and a lifespan of 19 years. That’s how long since the US Constitution was last revised (27th Amendment in1992). Right there we have a stark choice between an “obsolete” constitution that lasted two centuries and is still trucking versus a “modern” constitution that only lasts a couple of decades.
I also imagine that a huge difference between these constitutions is size and complexity. The original US Constitution and Bill of Rights filled up something like 6 handwritten pages. With the additional amendments, it’s up to something like 8 pages.
This was compared to four other constitutions. Canada’s is at least 60 pages of PDF document (just counting the amended act of 1867). I can’t tell with the German constitution (only web translation), but it has 141 articles and looks to be in the neighborhood of 40-80 pages (similar in size to the Canadian one). The Indian Constitution was written in calligraphy, stretching to almost 500 pages (it’d probably be a considerable factor smaller in PDF), including signatures of the Assembly members. And the South African Constitution stretches to 118 pages in PDF format.
Thinking back to what I read, I can’t help but think that a few decades down the road, the US Constitution will still be around while some of these “modern” constitutions won’t.
None of this means that the US Constitution is perfect. One difficulty is linguistic drift; the infamous “well-regulated” clause being an example. Another problem is ambiguity; again, the purpose clause is an example. And yet another problem is that some parts of it don’t sit at all well with today’s realities.
The particular case of this I’m thinking of is the delay between election of a new President and his inauguration; I am well aware of the reason for this, but the reason no longer applies and the Constitution has already been amended over this issue IIRC. I don’t think it serves America well to have effectively no President for two months, every so often. Over here in the UK, although we haven’t got an elected head of state of course, our head of government (the Prime Minister) is usually in office pretty well immediately after the election.
Incidentally, our Head of State, when there is a changeover, takes office immediately; theoretically, in an eyeblink. The next announcement (hopefully a long time from now) will be “The Queen is dead; Long Live the King!”
These are points I’ve thought of, being an outsider; I’m sure the Americans here can think of more.
Presidential elections are held in early November and the inauguration is held on Jan 20th. It used to be in March but that was changed back in the 1930s. The old president is still president until changeover on Jan 20th. In the early days, the delay was due to transportation issues as much as anything. Pre-railroad, it could take quite a while to get anywhere. Today, the period is used to nominate the different cabinet officials for confirmation by the Senate and to begin the transition of the (very bloated) executive branch from one president to the next.
A lot of the apparent ambiguity in the Constitution is because people who don’t like what it says want to change its enactment. It’s like the old scholars arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The text is actually pretty clear but they are being deliberately obtuse for political reasons.
I can think of a few things that could throw a monkey-wrench in your succession, such as the 2035 BBC report where they’re awaiting the outcome of a paternity test.
Mr. Turner, I don’t think there is any serious doubt about the paternity of Prince Charles. If we use Queen Elizabeth II’s mother as a guide for her probable lifespan (and the Queen certainly seems to be unusually healthy for an 86-year-old) then the probable date for his accession would be some time in the 2020s. Probably the late 2020s. Similarly, if Charles gets to the age his father is now then that gets us to maybe 2040. Or later.
If you are referring to doubts about the paternity of William, then I respectfully disagree. While Charles did indeed commit adultery during his ill-starred first marriage, I doubt that anyone thinks Diana did (at least until the marriage had already broken down).
Regarding difficulties in succession caused by accidents of birth – isn’t there currently a controversy in the USA about whether the current President is entitled to be President at all?
One more thing regarding the Constitution: IIRC the minimum age for Senators is 30 and the minimum for Presidents 35. This is presumably because in those far-off days people of those ages were deemed to be mature elders. Perhaps the minima for those two offices should be revised sharply upwards?
No, there’s too many senile old farts running the country as it is. If anything, we need to institute a mandatory retirement age.
One more thing regarding the Constitution: IIRC the minimum age for Senators is 30 and the minimum for Presidents 35. This is presumably because in those far-off days people of those ages were deemed to be mature elders. Perhaps the minima for those two offices should be revised sharply upwards?
Anyone who isn’t mature by those ages, isn’t likely to improve with more age.