So...what exactly is this "constitution" thingy?

[me_in_japan]

Ok. So, I appreciate that I am potentially wandering into shark infested waters here, but earlier today I was doing a spot of research on that infinite source of bullcrap, aka the Internet. I had read on the BBC that Illinois has just been strongarmed into passing a law that allows the carrying of concealed weapons by the general public. I don't know the ins and outs of the legal system stateside, but this seems to me to be a patently silly thing to do in a state which contains Chicago, a city with a pretty damn major gun crime problem already.

I see that a common argument for allowing guns is the ol' "right to bear arms" line in the constitution.

I'm fairly certain the writers of the constitution did not write this line while mentally picturing a bloke with a semi automatic, 33 round clip pistol shoved down his pants.

My question is not so much about gun laws etc, but the way in which the constitution is viewed.

Why is it that this document is not subject to constant change and updating? Or, put another way, why do many Americans almost...revere the constitution, the way some Brits look up to the Queen, almost?

I just thought this was an Odd Thing, and might be worth talking about. No intent to ruffle feathers, or owt.

[YellowStreak]

It is occasionally amended.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... nstitution

But it does seem to be held as a sacred document by many Americans.

Think the concealed carry is a bad idea? How about this; http://www.news.com.au/world-news/progu ... 6673059532

[me_in_japan]

Hmmm. Ok, amendments are good. Has there ever been a case where a section of the original constitution (or of the amendments) has been straight up cancelled? I mean in a "ok, this is clearly outdated and is no longer applicable, Article blahblah shall henceforth be considered null and void" kind of way"?

Also, I notice in the article YS posted it quotes the constitution as saying "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Are people who carry guns legally required to join a "well-regulated militia"? If not, how come this bit of the constitution can be ignored, but the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" can't be?

[Primarch]

Gun owner's logic.
http://amultiverse.com/2012/12/19/a-wel ... d-militia/
The author's comment is particularly apt.

[Konrad]

American gun rights debates look crazy from outside the States, because, well.....we Americans are a little crazy.........
Yeah, the whole "well regulated millitia" line of the 2nd amendment seems to pass through one ear and out the other of the most vocal extreme of unregulated gun rights supporters.
I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment in it's original sense. Every white, land-owning male American citizen as a matter of civil defense should keep and maintain a muzzle loading black powder musket in case of a slave uprising or you damn limeys come back. Or to shoot to Frenchmen and Indians for recreation. Better make sure I insult everyone just to make sure we all know I'm joking.
Guns are part of Americas history, it's mythos and it's culture, for better or worse. That genie shot it's way out of the bottle long ago and there is really nothing we can do but live with this pissed of genie packing heat.
I compare gun nuts to Star Wars fans. Except that these gun nuts actually believe that they are the band of plucky rebels holding the forces of Darkness and Empire at bay. They are geeks. I think we can all understand geeks, if not sympathize with them a bit.

[me_in_japan]

Hum, yes indeed...

The gun debate is a sticky wicket indeed (dat means an insurmountable problem, for those not versed in the joys of cricket, btw) but my original problem (read: can of worms) still stands: why not jig about with the constitution more? Delete bits, etc?

[job]

I'm just going to point out the gun control issue in Americag and the Constitution are really two separate things. While certainly the 2nd Amendment is the basis for the legal defense of gun ownership in America (even though a great deal of Americans argue that this is a complete misreading of the 2nd Amendment), the fact is this could be amended if the public desired it so, and the amendment doesn't preclude gun safety laws which the public in the US has been unable and/or unwilling to adopt.

The constitution itself is a document that enshrines and spells out the workings of the US government and also protects the individual civil liberties. Its a document that has been rather flexible and versatile document that is as much up for interpretation and reinterpretation as it sets out the basic tenents of American government. If you read about the legal history of the USA you'll find that the Constitution has been something that has been recast repeatedly. The US Civil War and the Abolition movement is one case point.

The document is a rather novel thing in many ways. It affirms American belief in unifying political beliefs that are central to the nation. It promulgates the belief that laws are the center of the state not any individual. It is something that has been repeatedly copied by other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_na ... stitutions

Generally, I agree with Konrad on gun ownership. I believe the 2nd Amendment spells out a far more limited private possessions of weapons. Personally, I feel a lot safer in a society without individual gun ownership, ie Japan, but again I have friends who own guns and have differing opinions on this issue, so I feel I just have accept this until there's a larger social movement against individual gun ownership.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[Konrad]

I'm just going to point out the gun control issue in Americag and the Constitution are really two separate things. While certainly the 2nd Amendment is the basis for the legal defense of gun ownership in America (even though a great deal of Americans argue that this is a complete misreading of the 2nd Amendment), the fact is this could be amended if the public desired it so, and the amendment doesn't preclude gun safety laws which the public in the US has been unable and/or unwilling to adopt.

The constitution itself is a document that enshrines and spells out the workings of the US government and also protects the individual civil liberties. Its a document that has been rather flexible and versatile document that is as much up for interpretation and reinterpretation as it sets out the basic tenents of American government. If you read about the legal history of the USA you'll find that the Constitution has been something that has been recast repeatedly. The US Civil War and the Abolition movement is one case point.

The document is a rather novel thing in many ways. It affirms American belief in unifying political beliefs that are central to the nation. It promulgates the belief that laws are the center of the state not any individual. It is something that has been repeatedly copied by other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_na ... stitutions

Generally, I agree with Konrad on gun ownership. I believe the 2nd Amendment spells out a far more limited private possessions of weapons. Personally, I feel a lot safer in a society without individual gun ownership, ie Japan, but again I have friends who own guns and have differing opinions on this issue, so I feel I just have accept this until there's a larger social movement against individual gun ownership.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

USA! USA! What can I say. Our constitution does rock. The trick the gun lobby does is to paint any and all attempts to regulate firearms as an attack on this sacred, central and unifying set of laws that our nation is founded on and all the rest of the rights we enjoy will go down like dominos. Like the right to not have the government keep track of your phone calls without a warrant..........oh man.......they already do that.......we need more guns!

[me_in_japan]

guns...

Note to self: never mention guns when you want folks' opinions on the constitution.

I appreciate the opinions though, guys

What is it that Americans see as so great about the constitution? Is it technically a well-written set of rules that hold true in contemporary society, or is it just something that's been there forever and makes y'all feel warm and cuddly and gawd-bless-America inside?

Just to clarify, I'm the kind of person who keeps picking at a problem until it's solved or the reactor melts down. Not trying to be troublesome, just curious

Edit: this line:

It promulgates the belief that laws are the center of the state not any individual.

is the kind of thing which, if it's true, would lead me to support a constitution 100%. It is, in short, a good idea (IMHO, etc) However, said document would need to be open to modification (amendment) as the world changes. Anything static and unchanging is doomed to irrelevance as soon as it's created.

[job]

I think I wrote something above about the constitution.

Just think of it as a cheaper substitute for a monarch as a symbol of national unity.

It also delineates the relationship between state and the people. Both are defined by the document.

Also it might be pointed out the US Constitution serves as pretty good vehicle for quickly expanding and absorbing new people into the citizen body. It is one of those things that can be easily taught to a child or stranger to help create the identity to what it means to be American (or any other nationality with such a document.)

A good question to those without a Constitution is "What do you identify as being whatever nationality as you?" And "What specifically are the responsibilities and freedoms afforded in your country?"

(not saying anything against other systems, but those are some of the very natural benefits of a Constitution.)

It might be said I think many Americans don't feel warm or cuddlie about their country or government. Ie the two writing On this thread. Granted we've got our share of bombastic patriots, but then again not every Brit has horribly crocked teeth because that is what we see often in America, right?

And as for the idea of "Rule of Law" at the heart, it is a very central tenent. It might be pointed out the there is a very natural parallel between the Constitution and its reverence and religious ideas from the century before in religious covenants. (Although one should remember the authors were very very Enlightenment people, so they were very secular when writing it.) This reverence has meant for fairly peaceful flow of government and respect for its mechanics and institutions. No J. Ceasers yet, knock on wood.

Granted this can look pretty ugly and silly at times, but it is part of the American sense of Constituionalism.

Lastly, it can be changed and it has been many many times. High school texts are loaded with strike out lines and highlighted words where things have been adjusted. Take the way the VP is now chosen as an example. Or the institution and disintitution of Prohibition.