Ron Paul poised to take on the Fed at head of financial subcommittee

[theVOID]

I frankly don't see why this 200 year old piece of legislation is held in such high regard, as a historical president it was a first, but defending an idea "because it's in the constitution" seems completely arbitrary, a much more effective system is a pragmatic one like we have here where laws are judged by their consequences and achievements and not a conservative one where the aging legislation is defended at (almost) all costs.

Keep the good parts, throw out the parts that are antiquated, clear up any confusion etc.

[DeistPaladin]

I frankly don't see why this 200 year old piece of legislation is held in such high regard

It's an American thing. Same with the quasi-deification of our founders. Those perplexed citizens of other nations trying to comprehend this eccentricity will just have to accept it as part of our national personality that's not going to change anytime soon.

Think of it this way: some nations have living monarchs with a lot of pomp and grandeur surrounding them. Our monarch happens to be 200 year old piece of paper with the same reverence surrounding it.

On the plus side, the maintenance for our "monarch" is a lot lower. Pieces of paper don't eat much and they never get involved in personal scandals or divorces that end up on the tabloids all over the world.

I think that's why Huckabee lost his nomination to be president, support among the Christian fundies not being sufficient to save him. When he brazenly said, "we need to change the constitution", it was the equivalent to walking up to the queen and tweaking her nose.

[Ryft]

I frankly don't see why this 200-year old piece of legislation is held in such high regard. As an historical precedent it was a first, but defending an idea "because it's in the constitution" seems completely arbitrary.

It is held in such high regard because it is the supreme law of the United States, the very thing that sets up what the government is, its organization, its jurisdictions, its powers or what it can and cannot do, how officials attain seats, etc. It is the very thing that guarantees the people as sovereign (or more importantly, prohibits the government as sovereign) and thus a brick wall against tyranny. Therefore, deference to the Constitution is anything but arbitrary.

Keep the good parts, throw out the parts that are antiquated, clear up any confusion, etc.

That is also in the U.S. Constitution. Article 5 describes the process by which the Constitution can be altered (and it has many times).

[Tiberius]

List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Monarchs don't tend to change the way the country is ruled, especially if it takes away some of their powers. The Constitution is set up in precisely a way that allows this to happen. Comparing it to a monarch is nothing short of absurd.

[DeistPaladin]

List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Monarchs don't tend to change the way the country is ruled, especially if it takes away some of their powers. The Constitution is set up in precisely a way that allows this to happen. Comparing it to a monarch is nothing short of absurd.

It was an analogy to explain the heavy sentiment that I as an American have for "that 200 year old piece of paper" in a way that a foreigner can understand.

In America, the Constitution IS king, in some cases, rightly trumping the will of the majority of voting Americans (see the civil rights struggle). That's why our supreme court is not elected directly.

There is an amendment process but it's a very long and difficult one. Our system is designed to take change slowly.

[Anomalocaris]

List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Monarchs don't tend to change the way the country is ruled, especially if it takes away some of their powers. The Constitution is set up in precisely a way that allows this to happen. Comparing it to a monarch is nothing short of absurd.

Sure they do. Look at your own monarchy. Look at how the way your country is ruled in reality fundamentally changed between 1680 and 1815. Every monarchy responds to ebb and flow of social forces, some enhances the influences of the person of the monarch, some enhances the power of the beaucracy that is nominally a part of the monarchy but does not necessarily act in strict accordance to the will of the person of the monarch, and some checks the power of the institution of monarchy either in favor of a singular outside organization like clergy, or distribute it amongst an entire class, like the landed gentry or a military aristocracy.

Ultimately, the only reliable, long lasting bulwark against tyranny is persistence of social and economic reality in which Pluralism manifestly ensures large part of the population are continuously be better off in the short term economically and security-wise, and the large part of the population is wise to this fact not only in an overall sense, but also alert to the impact of small scale changes to their economy and security interests. The constitution is but a prop, a luxury for the superstitious, whose fundamental efficacy in ensuring the survival of the constitutional system is much less than that of ensuring the persistence of those social and economic realities.

[DeistPaladin]

The constitution is but a prop, a luxury for the superstitious, whose fundamental efficacy in ensuring the survival of the constitutional system is much less than that of ensuring the persistence of those social and economic realities.

If nothing else, it ensures one critical aspect for a fair and just democracy: guard against what Alexis D'Tocqueville called "tyranny of the majority".

In a pure democracy, there's nothing that stops a majority from bullying an unpopular minority or treating them as second class citizens. Our constitution helps guard against that both by establishing a strict separation of church and state as well as making sure that the rights of minorities are respected.

This is not to say the system is perfect. We still have fundies trying to erode the wall between church and state. Civil rights was and is a long, difficult struggle. Still, the constitution is what allows us to stay within certain boundaries and offer a framework by which we can address these problems in ways a pure democracy could not.

It also ensures that change will occur slowly. Given the mood swings we American voters seem to have, I think this is a good thing for us. Give us a British or Canadian-style parliamentary democracy and you can bet we'd have a new Prime Minister every two years! We'd give the Italians a run for their money on who could have the least stable government.

[Anomalocaris]

I think the main long term guard of pluralism against popularism is also social and economic interest, not the constitution.

[lilyannerose]

DeistPaladin' pid='107225' dateline='1291075160

Think of it this way: some nations have living monarchs with a lot of pomp and grandeur surrounding them. Our monarch happens to be 200 year old piece of paper with the same reverence surrounding it.

You are right in that a lot of Americans have a real reverence for the document that is until four letters get mentioned as in A-C-L-U. It's a really interesting mindset especially with the Tea Party Devotees to the Constitution. They love the document but hate those that fight for its enforcement.

[Minimalist]

I recall a conversation on the news with some tea party shitwit last summer. Basically this bitch was whining "I want my country back." When asked what that meant she said " like the Founding Fathers set it up."

Ah, yes....the document which allowed the rich to appoint senators ( something we are getting perilously close to again ) failed to give women ( like HER ) the right to vote, counted blacks as 3/5 of a person and did not count Indians at all. That glorious piece of writing is what she longs for.