Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book? You don't see that with other nations...

>The constitution is written in a way that encompasses modern things.
[citation needed]
I highly doubt that a document written in a preindustrial society by wealthy landowners (albeit highly educated ones) had the capacity to predict the huge social and economic developments that accompanied the industrial revolutions, the growth of the state and mass politics.

Not him, but a more accurate term would be "accommodates", as it maintains its relevance far beyond the late 1700s. The governmental structure and principles outlined in the constitution do not fall apart with time; it was written to accommodate social and technological progression without sacrificing its integrity.

>The governmental structure and principles outlined in the constitution do not fall apart with time
the structure fell apart once (the civil war) and changed beyond recognition from what the founding fathers envisioned (which i suppose is inevitable) to become the playthings of political party machines. You can hold this up as proof that the constitution can accomodate change, maybe, but it just as much shows us that a written constitution doesn't tell us much, and countries can function just as well without one (e.g. the UK).

user, the Constitution has been amended 27 times to meet the growing needs of a continuously changing nation. The only people who are against it are Constitutional Purists, whom are a vocal minority. Also, the reason why Americans "worship" the book is because it is literally the core of American culture and law.

I don't mind people criticizing it, but you should at least read the history behind it and understand what it represents to the people.

Nigel. The system never fell apart here even in the civil war. And while there have been amendments, the constitution has changed very little

I think the purists are the majority of the people and those who want it changed are a minority

A big reason is that the U.S. unlike most other "natural" nation-states was not founded upon ethnic lines. This meant the nation had no national myth-history or historical identity stretching into antiquity the lack of these two normally necessary unifying forces meant that in essence the Government and those who created it is the Nation. For instance France has had a bajillion different states but the national identity exists separately. Without the state however the U.S as a nation would not exist, therefore the state and its' institutions (such as the Constitution) were placed in the spot other nations use for more abstract or ethnic ideals to give a kind of religious belief in the American nation.

Daily reminder that while the American government has been more or less stable for 300 years, most of Europe has been crippled through tumultuous political changes and violent upheavals.
The USA was founded when the Holy Roman Empire was still a thing. Now look how much Europe has changed since then.

Fat load of good it does them when in countries like France they teach kids about how evil their ancestors were and only give Napoleon a 2 paragraph footnote in history books

Europe has been crippled through internal rivalry and the costs associated with operating outside a unified political unit, the USA is the size of fucking Europe, and one of the most resource rich parts of the fucking planet.

France is a bad example, they killed off tons of regional languages in 19th century. At the time of the French Revolution less than 5% of the population spoke what would later become Standard French

I'm talking about the NATURE of the political system, which changed drastically even in the decades after the drafting of the constitution.

>The system never fell apart here even in the civil war.
It did. The moment you have to fix a political system through sustained violence it has failed. I'm not saying it didn't get fixed, only that it broke and that the process of repair altered the nature of the U.S. government and politics irreversibly.

Nice excuses.

And America didn't because it's identity was based more on it's state/government than making sure there was a very specific ethane-linguistic setup like France had to do.

Just shows how little of an understanding you have on American laws and history

>little of an understanding on American laws and history
Please enlighten me, then

Think about the sheer economic and human cost of the civil war, America's been insualted from war by being surrounded by neighbours with fuck all resources (secured via the monroe doctrine) and an ocean, every other european power was able to be invaded over land (bar Britain, who became a superpower in their own right) or, post world war 1, able to be assualted with planes (which is when Britain's time as a superpower really came to a close), America's got collosal resources, no neighbours who could even start to threaten them, and 2 oceans worth of natural barriers.

Those are the primary reasons, not excuses.

>sour grapes

Enjoy your next coup and/or religious wars

why are you butthurt when the other user gives youa reasonable explanation

their brain is too full of ideology. a lot of americans start acting petty like this whenever you start talking analytically about their political system

Read the 10th Ammendment.

The rights enumerated in the bill of rights are not privileges given to us by the government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to acknowledge rights that we are born with, that we would have no matter what the constitution said. So the bill of rights is not a lawbook. Laws are meant to enforce the rights outlined in the constitution. When the constitution is amended, it's amended to recognize new rights that we already had but were not acknowledged such as the freedom from slavery.

This is in contrast to other countries where your "rights" have been distorted to mean something different. You have no "right" to many of the things that the UN calls rights.

*9th

>inb4 americans can't read their own constitution

corrected myself, thank you very much

Fucking kek are you serious? You think that Europe doesn't have 18th Century laws? The same Europe that's famous for keeping old local laws that date back to the Medieval Period and earlier out of tradition's sake? Even then, so what if the laws are old? Should we drop things that work well simply due to age? Are you fucking daft?

>The same Europe that's famous for keeping old local laws that date back to the Medieval Period and earlier out of tradition's sake?
[citation needed]

Damn user if only there were a place online you could look up "Old laws in Europe" and instantaneously find lists and lists of results which have citations and are easily researchable if they don't.
lmgtfy.com/?q=old laws in Europe
Oh shit look at that

two can play that game
businessinsider.com/strangest-most-ridiculous-laws-in-america-2015-3

1. 27 amendments
2. Why fix what ain't broken

How does one prevent negative changes to the constitution?

Hard mode: Slippery slope is not a fallacy.

It's called "the rule of law" you dumb shit. Do you treat your laws as malleable, meaningless nonsense?

saged

Maybe thats why America has had the same government for over 200 years and in that short time, we went from a rag tag group of back water colonist to the most powerful nation in the world, while in euroland, their last 200 years are a revolving door of corrupt and inept monarchist, fascist, and communist.

Nation-states most often weren't built upon ethnic lines. The state was there first, it's powers inherited from the displaced aristocracy, and it built the nation up. It enforces the official language, maybe an official religion, a coherent taxation system brings measurement standards, educational and cultural campaigns collect and present the national history as desired by the state, etc.

>natural rights
Metaphysical hogwash.

Hobbes got it right. The only natural right is the right to do whatever it is that you are able. Unrestricted, this right leads to conflict, because the wills of other men often opposes my own.

Daily reminder that the USA are alone on a continent with 1culture religion and no enemy.

Ofc nothing changed, also kinda boring right?

>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?
They do? That thing's been amended so much there's probably more amendments than original text by now.
>You don't see that with other nations
Actually there are many countries with people going muh constitution every time reforms are proposed, see: Italy.

>The USA only has 1 culture and religion
?????????????

ITT: triggered americans

The rule of law does not refer to one document, but to the general principle you retard.

>rag tag group of back water colonist to the most powerful nation in the world

Historically, many of the founding fathers were incredible ballers. The war of 1812 was postponed an entire decade because England literally wouldn't start shit until Washington was dead.

>At fucking 80, he intimidated an entire country into not starting a war just by living near by

The Constitution basically gives a legal ground to long standing moral truths. It's not perfect and has been amended several times, but the whole legal system is built on it. It can absolutely be changed but to not reference it as the final word of law would upend the legal structure in America.

Like literally the highest power of the courts is to deem something unconstitutional, which basically says that forever laws can't be made to allow that thing. (Take free speech since everyone knows that: no law can inhibit protected free speech because freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution)

>op asks decent question

You: MUH GUNS MUFUGGA MUH 60% WHITE MUH FREE SPEECH EUROPOOR USA USA USA GUNS GUNS

blast your fucking brain with one of your guns please

Valuable post, please make another just like it

Not really, here in Spain we're also very against the idea of changing the Constitution.

>Doesn't understand the distinction between constitution and law
Opinion discarded.

Because if you don't treat certain things as sacrosanct, your nation effectively has no principles. The constitution as sacred writ may occasionally cause problems, but I far prefer it to go along and get along style nonsense like they have in Europe in general and Britain in particular.

I'll never have to worry about being imprisoned for saying something mean about muslims due to my first amendment rights for example, and my right to ownership of firearms for self-defense and sport is guaranteed by the second amendment.

Yes, that's why we're getting legions of people clamoring for the elimination of things like Incorporation Doctrine.

Cry moar, you little eurofaggot. I'm sure you have good reason to do so given that your country is being raped to death by mudslime savages as we speak.

Yeah, a nation shouldn't have any guiding principles, it should just mindlessly follow the popular wisdom of the present year without regard for either the past or future.

>I can try and fail to deflect the fact that I just got my ass handed to me

t. not that other guy you were just arguing with

>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?

It is a means of trying to trick the other party into saying bad things about the constitution out of contrarianism. There are very real flaws in the constitution but the biggest effort to get away from it has a very bad reputation for a good reason. Basically a way of silencing debate.

The other reason is that major changes to the constitution would need a level of agreement that is just not possible in this day and age. Admitting flaws in the constitution in public is admitting our government has unfix-able flaws in public.

finally a rational american reply

We don't

I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games. Did he enjoy them?

Dunno, I think Bioshock 3 actually draws an interesting parallel between the strict adherence to the constitution and hero worship of the fathers to religious adherence to the bible and worship of Jesus.

I don't think one caused the other, but they may have similar roots.

Question, would the US ever be able to agree on a modernized version of the constitution like in a non partisan fashion?
I would think this is near impossible, but then I don't know US politics that well.

Almost certainly not.
Plus, it's hard to see why there would be a need. The Constitution isn't a law or a set of laws. It's a set of organizing principles of how the government itself is to work. Short of some kind of revolution and elimination of the entire government altogether, it's hard to see why there would be such a radical restructuring.

No, if anyone tried Civil War will break out.

On that, Swiss here, like you might now we amend/alter our constitution every 3 months or so, courtesy of direct democracy. Every 100 years or so, so much altering and amending has been done and times have changed so much, that a rework is in order. Of course you don't change basic principles like division of powers and basic principles of government, but you bring it into one modern piece again. From a technical point it is doable and helpful.

And if you consider how SCOTUS rulings impact either the creation or at least interpretation of constitutional law, you get one of that every time you have a ruling on a constitutional issue, however frequently that may be.

I mean for fuck's sake; the Bill of Rights were not applicable to state governments until the 1920s, when one by one, the Supreme Court decided they ought to be. (The Third Amendment still hasn't been added, but that one doesn't come up all that often). Questions about due process bounce around pretty damn frequently; and the notion that the Constitution is some hidebound artifact of the 1780s which hasn't acclimated with the times is pretty ignorant.

>That thing's been amended so much there's probably more amendments than original text by now.

Constitution worshippers don't know that

Because we modeled ourselves after rome, and retroactively making changes that "modernize" a constitution fucked rome over

>touches grandfather's lee enfield used to fight off nazis
>gets killed by police for possession of a deadly weapon
Fag

>actually trying to pretend America doesnt rule earth

lol

Endless civil wars and the issues that I caused coupled with grossly incompetent leadership was a greater contributor to the fall of Rome than "muh Constitution"

>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?
We don't. We treat it like it's the highest law of the land, which it is.

>You don't see that with other nations, they realize that law can always be changed and that the laws created 250 years ago may not suit the modern times

We also realize this, which is why we've changed it 27 times. The process requires a lot of agreement though, since it is deliberately designed to prevent government suppression of natural rights, which is prevalent in other countries

>what would the founding fathers say about that?
This is because "original intent" plays a big part in our interpretation of the law. Not ideal, but it is what it is.

So I guess the better question is, why SHOULDN'T we rightfully respect the Constitution as both the foundation of our government and the most important body of law we have? So the white left can feel better about guns? I think not.

I was talking about the first bit

Britain has it's principles, they are determined by the electorate, parties that pass shit legislation can be replaced quickly, and their legislation destroyed equally quickly, with the only limits being political, you proclaim a republic of the people, then cower in fear at the people holding true sway over politics.

There's a reason that you know what are constitution is like, and we don't have to bother learning about whatever it is you people use for a rulebook.

>are constitution
the incredible intellect of the American mind

see this

We've changed it a hell of a lot more than just the amendments. Show me the amendment that states that privacy is included in the 1st amendment, or that reproductive choices are in there as well. SHow me the amendment that defines, or changes the definition as to what is proper "due process" per the 5th and 14th amendments.

>We don't. We treat it like it's the highest law of the land, which it is.
Fuck off mate
youtu.be/EctFezm3vy8
This is a song about the formation of a legal document to define a new state.
Being sung about by young childeren, no other nation does this, British childeren don't sing songs about the glorious revolution or the Magna Carta, the constritution, and the founding fathers are given far more credit than politicians and legal documents in other parts of the world are.
>We also realize this, which is why we've changed it 27 times. The process requires a lot of agreement though, since it is deliberately designed to prevent government suppression of natural rights, which is prevalent in other countries
Natural rights are an absurd concept, and the first 10 "Ammendments" hardly count, considering the bill of rights was a compromise made in order to ratify the constitution in the first place, natural rights are invented rights, as are all rights, "natural rights" is essentially stating a falsehood, that all people are entitled to what you have in the constitution, regardless of how stupid it may or may not be, espeically in regards to militias.
>This is because "original intent" plays a big part in our interpretation of the law. Not ideal, but it is what it is.
Because there is a culture in America that the founding fathers were good people, honest, sophisticated, bold, never stupid, never bumbling, never human.
>So I guess the better question is, why SHOULDN'T we rightfully respect the Constitution as both the foundation of our government and the most important body of law we have? So the white left can feel better about guns? I think not.
You treat your politicans as gods and make monuments to them, effigies, legends, it's downright heretical.

>tfw your entire country still reads texts for intention and is too stupid to read philosophy post-dating the mid-19th century and this is the core of why even your best and brightest are clueless about moving your country forward

>Why do Americans treat their constitution like some infallible holy book?
Because the rights put in it are unironically considered to be granted by god. That is what sets American thinking on this from European.

The constitution does change, its just really hard so that 51% cant impose whatever the hell they want on the remaining 49%

>Where does this personality worship come from?

Because Original intent is one of the most popular legal doctrines in interpreting the Constitution, so the opinion of the people who wrote it and voted on it are considered relevant.

Yeah that's what he said. Stay obsessed, dumb yuro faggot

The citation can be the image he used in his post

I'm not sure I get the issue. Do we not amend the Constitution? Is there something inherently wrong with it? Yes, we hold the Founding Fathers in high regard, but I don't see why it wouldn't be well-deserved. All-in-all I think you're just getting your panties in a twist over nothing.

>Natural rights are an absurd concept
Call them negative rights if natural rights triggers you, you autist. The whole idea is that Humans are capable of doing any number of things, and the government can not and should not infringe the ability to do those things unless absolutely necessary.

>British childeren don't sing songs about the glorious revolution or the Magna Carta
Maybe you should, then there would be a little more outrage the next time someone gets arrested tweeting a mean joke, or there's a random weapons sweep looking for safety scissors.

You are now aware that we've changed our Constitution numerous times, as it incorporates not one, but two ways to amend it.

So yeah. laws that were created 200+ years ago have been changed and changed again.

Of course.
But Americans themselves don't seem to realize that.

>Because there is a culture in America that the founding fathers were good people, honest, sophisticated, bold, never stupid, never bumbling, never human.

Actually my triggered autist, in the United States there is a form of jurisprudence where when a judge makes decisions he takes into account the intentions of the original authors of the statute when making rulings. There are arguments for or against such things, but the natural extension of such a view is that when dealing with laws which come in conflict with the constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, one must attempt to take into account the opinions of the Framers. There are people on the Court today and throughout American history who took a more libertine view to judicial rulings, and applied rulings as they believed correct.

>but two ways to amend it.
No it includes only one way to amend it. It was the Supreme Court who gave THEMSELVES the power of judicial review.

>implying this absurd form of jurisprudence isn't a reflection/extension of the culture the other user was talking about

you're the idiot here

>implying this absurd form of jurisprudence isn't a reflection/extension of the culture the other user was talking about

What's so absurd about it. If a law made with the intention to do X, but some fag comes in with some bullshit legalese to make actually do Y, then it seems to me to be a perfectly fine way to rule on such matters. It's all in how you view the judiciary and what your opinion their power should be.

>Actually my triggered autist, in the United States there is a form of jurisprudence where when a judge makes decisions he takes into account the intentions of the original authors of the statute when making rulings.
That is sometimes the case. It is not always the case. You can't exactly reconcile Incorporation Doctrine with Originalism.

Which is itself delinated in Article 3, Section 1. Judicial power is invested, not created, by the new constitution. That implies that American judges enjoyed the same power as common law English judges, and judicial review falls into that.

How is that absurd? Have you seen the sort of nonsense lawyers can do with laws that completely shit on the actual intent of the law in question?

>You can't exactly reconcile Incorporation Doctrine with Originalism
Pretty sure most Originalist think most uses of the 14th are bullshit, and try to create arguments without it.

>That implies
Again implicitly, which means a judge ruled this to be the case. Judges have great power in a common law system, but the exact powers of judicial review were never fully envisioned during the writing of the Constitution. Much like everything else about it.

>Maybe you should, then the...
If you have to use /pol/ and /int/ memes to insult your opponent, you need to reevaluate your worldview and how much you really "know" about the world, and how much is bullshit memes you knee-jerkedly spit out because the state, of your parents or you school told you it was so.

Are you fucking high, Americunt?
You have TWO neighbors, because you are all immigrants there is very little ethnic conflict, you had to conquer basically cavemen, because of the previous, there were vast amounts of land basically undefended, etc
Pic very much related