Is the US Constitution Outdated?

[ulthar]

A lot of folks think so:

NY Time Article "We The People" Loses Appeal with People Around the World

[tracy]

I'm grateful that we have it.

[indianasmith]

I have a great reverence for the founders of our nation and the remarkable Republic they created.  They combined the perfect amount of flexibility with the necessary rigidity to provide political cohesion.  Every time I teach the unit on the Constitutional Convention, every time I peruse the Federalst Papers, I am more impressed with the system they created.   If the rest of the world no longer recognizes their genius, it is their loss. If America no longer appreciates it, that may well mark the death knell of our Republic.

And it doesn't surprise me the Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is critical of the Constitution.  Like many on the far left of American politics, she has little use for it.

[The Gravekeeper]

Just as an outsider looking in, I don't see much of anything inherently wrong with the Constitution. Maybe it could use a little updating to reflect how very much the world has changed since it was written, but isn't that what amendments are for?

[Flick James]

I have a great reverence for the founders of our nation and the remarkable Republic they created.  They combined the perfect amount of flexibility with the necessary rigidity to provide political cohesion.  Every time I teach the unit on the Constitutional Convention, every time I peruse the Federalst Papers, I am more impressed with the system they created.   If the rest of the world no longer recognizes their genius, it is their loss. If America no longer appreciates it, that may well mark the death knell of our Republic.

And it doesn't surprise me the Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is critical of the Constitution.  Like many on the far left of American politics, she has little use for it.

Just as an outsider looking in, I don't see much of anything inherently wrong with the Constitution. Maybe it could use a little updating to reflect how very much the world has changed since it was written, but isn't that what amendments are for?

Valid input from the both of you. I don't doubt the Indy will take some exception to what I'm about to say, but I will say it anyway. Foreign perception of U.S. actions plays a major role in this. As we have grown persistently more interventionist, perception of the U.S. by other nations grows increasingly negative, and so this is reflected somewhat in perception of our founding documents. I would be the first to agree with Indy in saying "f*** 'em, their loss," if we were a little better at minding our own business. Call me an isolationist all you want, and you would be correct. I have yet to see the long-term benefits of the interventionist policies we have increasingly adopted.

Perhaps this has nothing to do ideologically with the Constitution, and it doesn't, but it affects the perception of other nations. We once led by example, now we lead by military might. We once led the world in production, farming, innovation, but now we are have become little more than the police arm of NATO. Currently, if you were to take away our military muscle, we wouldn't have much to offer, or at least far less than we once did. Confidence in the U.S. is waning, and this shades the perception of governments who might consider mirroring us and benefitting the world with increased democracy. Our current method of spreading democracy is not through example, but through military intervention. One can question my patriotism all they want, but this is not the way a nation that treasures liberty, tolerance, and equality, as would seem to be the case through the language of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, should endeavor to spread democracy. We can only look to our history and say "look what great things we did" for so long before we have to realize that we are no longer the nation that did those things. We can only say "the world has changed and we're just changing with it" for so long before we have to acknowledge our hand in creating the world as it is today.

Going from "shining example to the world" to "f*** 'em it's their loss" is not okay with me.

[tracy]

I just don't feel we ought to change or update the constitution to please anyone outside the USA. And I'll admit that telling a few select countries to f*** off seems tempting. However,this is still the greatest country in the world and I'd rather live here than anywhere else. I feel we are an example for folks and changing to fit what others think of us isn't right....in my book.

[ulthar]

I'd rather live here than anywhere else.

You and a whole bunch of other people who live somewhere else.

If you look solely at the birth rate : death rate ratio, the US Population is decreasing.  The net population increase is due entirely by immigration.  That immigration not only enough to offset the natural population decline, but is enough to cause a significant GROWTH.

It must not be so bad here.

Personally, I think the article I linked to is a NY Times propaganda piece.  I think someone went out of their way to find quotes that "show" that the US Constitution is falling out of favor. Their arguments are specious at best, and stupid in some cases.

The "Founding" principles of a nation should not be fluid or easy to change on the whim of a new generation.  That generation may well lack the historical perspective to evaluate things properly.  The Founders were very, very wise (in my opinion) to make the US Constitution difficult to change...that that is represents a, I don't know, let's call it a

FOUNDATION.

Flick, I agree with you that we cannot fully turn our back on the globalist practices, but that does not mean we let others tell us how to run our own household, either.  Like I had the opportunity to say today in the context of my own home and my own family, "I don't recall asking {your} permission how to raise my children and what I think is best for them."

I'm sickened by the notion, seemingly more and more prevalent at all levels (personal, local government, national government, etc) that decisions should be made on the basis of "fitting in."  Just because France, Japan, Norway or where ever does something a certain way does NOT mean it's best for us.  We don't need to "fit in" on the global stage in this way.

We can choose to lead or follow.  All the folks the NY Times quoted want us to follow.  I say "crap" to that.

And, true, it's stuff like this that is pushing me more and more toward Ron Paul's brand of xenophobia (for lack of a better word).

[Flick James]

Perhaps my language was not the best. Believe, I would love for the U.S. to be able to say "their loss." We simply can't. We've spent too much energy trying to solve the problems of the world, trying to make stable a world that has always been, and by all reasonable justifications will alway be unstable. The bulk of this activity has been post WWII.

That's okay to say "we're still the greatest country in the world," but by what justification? I agree in many respects, but I am also realistic enough to acknowledge that this is, at best, a status we are barely holding onto. The U.S. has spread itself so thin in its policing of the world and trying to solve the world's problems that our competitive capacity is horribly diminished. We don't have the economic or innovative capacity we once had. That's just the truth. And while we may be tenuously holding onto a position of power, other nations have developed. To add insult, they have developed under systems of government vastly alien to our own, suggesting to the rest of the world that the U.S. system of government is inferior.

And much of this is because we are spread too thin. We indeed have went the way of the Roman Empire, who crumbled in the face of runaway expansion. Just replace expansion with intervention for the modern equivalent. Both cost their respective governments vast resources, and neither case is it's world influence able to be sustained. The barbarians didn't need to do much to sack Rome. Rome was ready to fall.

But, alas, this little history lesson, as big a lesson as Rome is, will not be heeded. It will be laughed at by people who say that the world is different now, and the U.S. is not Rome. Well, that's partially true, because as it's looking the U.S. will not sustain it's glory for nearly as long as Rome did.

[Flick James]

If you look solely at the birth rate : death rate ratio, the US Population is decreasing.  The net population increase is due entirely by immigration.  That immigration not only enough to offset the natural population decline, but is enough to cause a significant GROWTH.

It must not be so bad here.

This is a hazy indication that things are better here than anywhere else. Consider the Rome analogy of my last post. It could easily be that the plundering of the barbarians has begun.

[Flick James]

And, true, it's stuff like this that is pushing me more and more toward Ron Paul's brand of xenophobia (for lack of a better word).

Xenophobia? There is a better word, or phrase really. It's called "minding our own business."

[ulthar]

Xenophobia? There is a better word, or phrase really. It's called "minding our own business."

LOL...fair enough!

[ulthar]

This is a hazy indication that things are better here than anywhere else. Consider the Rome analogy of my last post. It could easily be that the plundering of the barbarians has begun.

Has to be something to plunder, though, right?  I mean, maybe that's super simplistic.

A good friend of mine would see your point and raise you a "not only begun, but is WELL under way."

[Flick James]

This is a hazy indication that things are better here than anywhere else. Consider the Rome analogy of my last post. It could easily be that the plundering of the barbarians has begun.

Has to be something to plunder, though, right?  I mean, maybe that's super simplistic.

A good friend of mine would see your point and raise you a "not only begun, but is WELL under way."

Duely noted.

[lester1/2jr]

We dont' even follow it so it's kind of moot.

[dean]

I guess it boils down to figuring out if your country is a power because of it, or despite it.

That being said, I don't see how a document created over 100 years ago will remain relevant as society changes, so its important to keep up with changing attitudes as they become universally applicable...