U.S. constitution gets a warning label - by PeeperStorm
demagogue on 14/6/2010 at 04:04
I took comparative constitutional law, from a former German Constitutional Court Justice even ... And the basic punchline of that class was that the language and structure of the US Constitution is hopelessly archaic by world standards.
He told a lot of stories about former communist and other transition countries (like S. Africa) in the 90s, when they were writing their own new constitutions and open to other countries' examples, all these American lawyers would descend with an attitude like the US Constitution was the best, if not only, way to do something, whereas most of them took the reasonable approach of picking bits and pieces from a lot of different constitutions, and sticking with modern language and structure.
To put it in perspective, though, the US Constitutional jurisprudence is more up to date and quite sophisticated and functional, but it took 200 years for that to develop, which doesn't make it very good for export. (According to Bruce Ackerman, we're actually on our, IIRC, 6th Constitution. Same text, but completely different reading and application. That would make us in our 6th Republic, one more than France! The Tea Party folk ought to appreciate that...) I'd say the issue isn't so much the racism and archaic assumptions of the Founders. It's easy to read around that. But more that the language isn't geared towards a lot of aspects of modern governance ... regulatory agencies, how treaties and executive agreements really work, how "due process" really works, quasi-governmental powers, "governmental-like" civic behavior, etc, etc... which have to be interpreted in. There are a lot of sophisticated things that have grown organically around the US Constitution. But that's why you have to interpret it through the history and cases and jurisprudence, and why you might miss a lot trying to read it alone.
All that said, I think everybody should read the constitution or foundational documents of their home country and read them with a bit of the old civic spirit, thinking about how it affects their lives and can be used to make their country a better place. If you put a "warning" on them, even with good intentions, you might chill that kind of civic spirit. On the other hand, it's not bad to say -something- to get people comfortable taking a critical stance because if you just read it uncritically, without asking any questions, that can undermine civic participation too, since you're just dogmatically following a rule blindly rather than thinking about why it's there in the first place, and whether it might be improved to make our country better, or heaven forbid other countries might have a different approach that might be instructive. So I'm a fan of the middle road, not too cynical you can't be civic-minded but not too uncritical you become a dogmatic zombie.
Renzatic on 14/6/2010 at 04:48
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
They make up 60% of the population of my college, as far as I can tell. I actually know someone who did a Senior Thesis entitled "Intolerable Acts Indeed," which, as far as I can tell, is about how all the founding fathers sucked because they were racist.
They're idiots, more concerned with looking open minded than actually being open minded. The sad fact of it all is that most of the Western enlightened thinkers all had their quirks, being that most of them were racist astrologer types who believed in the restorative power of viking runes. Their personal beliefs, though a bit uncouth by todays hypersensitive standards, doesn't make their contributions to philosophy and society any less meaningful.
Koki on 14/6/2010 at 05:05
Quote Posted by Nicker
Done.
CAUTION: This book is a product of its times and may contain information, accounts and opinions incompatible with known history, modern legal principles, scientific fact and common moral decency. Parents may want to discuss such matters as the stoning of disobedient children, the blood sacrifice of animals and humans, the ownership, trade and/or torture of humans, murder, rape, the commission of war crimes (including genocide and gross mistreatment of captives), threats of eternal torment, the marginalization of people due to their racial, religious, sexual or even national and civic identity, before allowing children to read this book. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any deleterious effects from the reading of this book, including but not limited to: mind-numbing anxiety, embarrassing public displays of fainting, glossolalia or egregious arm waving, the reduction of critical and rational capacity or the harassment of grieving persons.
Inline Image:
http://www.wordsoup.com/blog/Holy%20Bible.jpgI believe you were looking for this
Nicker on 14/6/2010 at 06:40
Quote Posted by Koki
I believe you were looking for this
What? And miss being called a faggot by a TTLG superstar?
Bluegrime on 14/6/2010 at 07:09
To be fair everyone was thinking that after the fourth line.
Pardoner on 14/6/2010 at 08:07
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
To be fair everyone was thinking that after the fourth line.
Nope.
Queue on 14/6/2010 at 14:22
I read the Constitution and the Bible only for the naughty bits.
...lot of flipping around, while on the potty, looking for the good parts.
Renzatic on 14/6/2010 at 18:35
Just wait til you get to the bit where Jefferson says it's totally okay to have a harem full of black ladies. Once you read that, you'll realize why they have to put a warning on the thing.
Jason Moyer on 14/6/2010 at 18:43
Quote Posted by Nicker
Done.
I laughed.
Jason Moyer on 14/6/2010 at 18:46
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
They make up 60% of the population of my college, as far as I can tell. I actually know someone who did a Senior Thesis entitled "Intolerable Acts Indeed," which, as far as I can tell, is about how all the founding fathers sucked because they were racist.
It's easy to call someone a jackass for being a racist in the 18th century when you didn't actually live during that time.
Surely in 200 years someone will write an essay about how fucking stupid hippies were. Or, hell, why wait that long. It's been 40 years since anyone has taken them seriously as anything beyond a trendy subculture.
