13 minutes ago, W3bbo wrote
No-one one here has, but the general rhetoric of many "constitutionalist" politicians and socio-political movements implies connotations of a kind of inerrancy in the constitution. Note that I'm not citing anyone in particular over this.
I was unaware that you followed commentary in the US so closely. Please support your assertion or withdraw it (and the related point in the previous post) in full.
Presidents and others are sworn to uphold it, yet it can be amended;
You will notice that the amendment process is *gasp* part of the Constitution! See Article 5.
if it's a living document then what happens if an amendment is made that a person who made a sworn oath cannot consciously abide with?
Oh my head is hurting from this continued inanity. Hang on... I need to go grab a beer.
Now then... 'living document' is not something you hear from anyone with a true respect for the Constitution, those who say that it's an old and hard to understand document, that must be interpreted in our more modern era to deal with things that the founding fathers never could have imagined.
On one side you have those who support 'strict constructionism' or 'originalism', who seek to understand what the founders and framers (two rather distinct groups) would have intended. What the language at the time meant and to work from there to understand applications today (if any).
They support the social contract and the civil society and wish to preserve it.
On the other side you have those who see the constitution as a hindrance at worse, or as something to be molded and new found rights/interpretations to be discovered (or invented out of whole cloth) from emanations and penumbras (words I have not chosen at random) from other rights (either real or implied).
They reject the social contract and the civil society.
As an example... regardless of ones view on abortion... it was the ‘living and breathing’ mentality that was behind the famous Roe vs Wade decision... one that any honest legal observer/scholar/expert/etc will admit is rather poorly grounded (as written/ruled)... so much so that if a law student ever turned in a paper arguing similarly, they would almost certainly fail the class.
If you want to find/create an absolute right to abortion... fine. Either use the legislature (or amendment process) for that or base such a right on solid precedent... don’t try to convolute legal precedent to try to apply in a way you want it to.
I can't tell if "So is it you support tyranny eh? Or is it you just don't understand the civil society and/or a social contract?" is you making a strawman argument or a false-dichotomy,
Your attempt to deflect the question is... laughable and obvious I fear. To answer your poorly thought out question though...
Neither. It is a simple choice. You are either advocating for a system where there is little chance of consistent and predictable rule of law... or there is.
but you don't need a written constitution to establish a social contract between the government and the people. Lots of democracies and nations have an unwritten constitution, like the UK, NZ, and Israel.
Nor does one need a written will, a written business arrangement, or a written report card... and yet... all tend to come in rather handy when there is a disagreement over something such a thing might address.
You again forget one of the key aspects of the United States Constitution... it specifies the specific, enumerated powers that the Federal government has. It sets out to explicitly limit the scope of government. Without such a written constitution... it becomes significantly harder to enforce a predictable rule of law. Otherwise... what do you fall back on? What a few lawyers in black robes decide on their own?
It's not like people don't develop designs on other nations. During the Cold War a key precept of contemporary
conservative thought was how to subjugate Russia and the Soviet Union to their will
Seriously... you need to think about some of your arguments a bit more and either base them on fact (and comparable examples)... or just not make them at all.
You compare... your desire for the US to have socialized medicine... to the desire for the western powers to not face a rather large and powerful adversary which is constantly trying to expand it's sphere of influence around the world and often directly threatening those same western powers?
Pray tell how the United States having predominantly having a a private health care and private insurance system threatens the existence of the UK or the NHS? Or even creates a fear of the similar in the minds of those in the UK?