"Mike...." wrote in message
news:nvo4vehouj2g$.mofft63or53g.dlg@40tude.net...
> Following up to Jean O'Boyle
>
>> Because it provides the framework for the organization of the US
>> government and is the supreme law of our country.
>
> many countries have written constiutions, but US seems uniquely obsessed
> with relating any potential change to it and refers to it like the word of
> god, while others just ask "is x a good idea?"
> --
> "Mike....."(not "Mike")
> remove clothing to email
Memories from Civics 101:
We do look to it for answers. The country was an experiment when it came
into being, without a history of traditional laws formed over a number of
centuries, like most of Europe. It was specifically written to get rid of
the tyranical powers of a monarchy. It took the best part of British law and
tossed out the bad parts.
The founding fathers wrote a strong document that didn't go deep into
details. It set the path but didn't insist on any one way to go down the
path. So it's flexible enough to evolve and address new issues, by
interpretation of the Court. Some folks want to interpret it strictly,
others loosely. The problem with asking "is x a good idea" comes from who is
doing the asking. A lot of people thought Hitler had good ideas for Germany
et al. (okay, that oughta kill the tread) Right now a bunch of idiot
generals think the best idea is to let their countryman starve, instead of
letting the world deliver food and medicine, because it might undermine
their power.
The present administration is taking it as loose as possible. Which is why
some of its actions, like wiretapping, are being thrown out by the Supreme
Count.
It's a pretty good document, which is why it's the oldest constitution still
in use.
That make sense. Mike.....?
|
