Foreign Opinion & the US Constitution

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you mean like the city of Los Angeles and the States of California and New Jersey?

You've not 'lived' in any of those... have you?

First of all lets get something straight. There is nothing New about Jersey. Second of all, someone does not have to live in a city to dislike it. Understanding what makes a country tick is a completely different story.

How so? Aren't local issues refective of national issues?

New Jersey is called New Jersey because it's the named after the island of Jersey. As New York is named after York.

[Heracles 417]

As to the Constitution not being admired internationally I wonder if we're talking "pub talk" or actual political debate.

TV talk shows and talk radio are the ones harping on about the shortcomings of the constitution with their dubious "wars" on culture, the middle class or Christmas. Helps them sell books I guess - but nothing like creating a debate where none exists.

Don't you think if other 1st world nations admired the US's exact constitution so much they would have implemented it? If one was to look at the nations which have the highest living standards in the world. Yes the other 25 nations above the US, I bet you would find none of them have an American style constitution.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As to the Constitution not being admired internationally I wonder if we're talking "pub talk" or actual political debate.

TV talk shows and talk radio are the ones harping on about the shortcomings of the constitution with their dubious "wars" on culture, the middle class or Christmas. Helps them sell books I guess - but nothing like creating a debate where none exists.

Don't you think if other 1st world nations admired the US's exact constitution so much they would have implemented it? If one was to look at the nations which have the highest living standards in the world. Yes the other 25 nations above the US, I bet you would find none of them have an American style constitution.

So in other words the absence of direct evidence and your ability to find very vague implications based on the absence of something amounts to proof of what you're saying?

National Constitutions are implemented when a country is founded... or "refounded" as in the case of Russia and Germany - they aren't brought in retroactively everywhere else.

The UK for example, has never had a specific written national constitution.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...17648&st=75

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Commonwealth of Australia adopted a constitution (1900) following ours more closely even that that of Canada (1867) did; and in 1909, after the Boer War, the Union of South Africa adopted a similar constitution, but owing to the diversity of the races and interests which were united, it does not follow the American model so closely as do those of Canada and Australia. France, Belgium, and Switzerland have put in their constitutions many provisions first employed in ours; but to the extent that other countries have failed to follow the Constitution of the United States their governmental structures are weak, as the study of the notes will reveal.

...

...in 1780, seven years before the Constitution was drafted, Massachusetts put in its Constitution what became the classic statement of the American theory of the division of governmental powers:

"In the government of this commonwealth the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them -- to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...in 1780, seven years before the Constitution was drafted, Massachusetts put in its Constitution what became the classic statement of the American theory of the division of governmental powers:

"In the government of this commonwealth the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them -- to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

[mateo 0]

I find it a very common theme for the naive (those without an international perspective) for people to think there is one system that works. Culture plays a huge role in what works in one country and not in another. I have lived the better part of my adult life in several countries and some of them were so screwed up that they prompted daily contemplation over right and wrong. Simply pasting a cookie cutter constitution onto those countries and saying this is what will work the best because it works for me, is wrong. Lets face it some cultures are ####### while others a plain lazy!

Back to the topic!

What we take for granted... The freedom to protect yourself! In many countries and parts of the communist north east of the US a common criminal has more rights than the victim. No here in Arizona, the true land of the free, this is a No Retreat state. That means you do not have to back down and run and you are 100% in the law to defend yourself. Try finding that in some countries.

[Heracles 417]

So in other words the absence of direct evidence and your ability to find very vague implications based on the absence of something amounts to proof of what you're saying?

National Constitutions are implemented when a country is founded... or "refounded" as in the case of Russia and Germany - they aren't brought in retroactively everywhere else.

The UK for example, has never had a specific written national constitution.

I am not talking about constitutions in general. Man sometimes I feel like I am dealing with idiots in the OT section. I am talking about the word for word US constitution. You said it yourself the UK does not have a constitution, let alone a copy of America's constitution. Last time I checked the UK has a much higher living standard than the US.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So in other words the absence of direct evidence and your ability to find very vague implications based on the absence of something amounts to proof of what you're saying?

National Constitutions are implemented when a country is founded... or "refounded" as in the case of Russia and Germany - they aren't brought in retroactively everywhere else.

The UK for example, has never had a specific written national constitution.

I am not talking about constitutions in general. Man sometimes I feel like I am dealing with idiots in the OT section. I am talking about the word for word US constitution. You said it yourself the UK does not have a constitution, let alone a copy of America's constitution. Last time I checked the UK has a much higher living standard than the US.

Yes and no. Cost of living in the UK is as high or higher than the US - depending on where you live. London is more expensive than NYC. The only thing that makes a big difference is not having to pay out of pocket healthcare in the UK (except for dentistry which is now nearly all private)

On the downside - not having a constitution means that our constitutional values are essentially defined (and redefined) by parliament. That might make it easier to get things done - but it also means that things can be changed or forced through without having public support. The single currency for example. Most of the resentment felt towards EU integration is due to its being imposed on the public rather than their feeling that they have a choice in these things. Together with the way the leadership process works - noone really votes for the Prime Minister either, and with parliamentary procedure someone like Maggie Thatcher could hang onto power for 11 years, and even then she wasn't voted out - but deposed by her own subordinates.

The US constitution wasn't pulled out of the founding father's collective a$$holes - but was based on the constitutional documentation of numerous countries. The bill of rights was taken more or less straight out of a defunct UK document dating to the 1600s. These things are implemented - but short of a revolution no country is going to re-establish a national constitution just because they like the contents and wording of the US came up with. I will say though that contemporary constitutions - those arising out of the turmoil of the 20th century are indeed heavily influenced by the US model.

[Heracles 417]

If the two country's system of government was a game of chess I would say the Parliamentary system would have said checkmate after the first move. Every time I travel to Aus and then come back I notice the huge difference in which system works and which does not. People there are having the best year ever whereas all I see here is frowns, attitude and generally how miserable people are. This is not a pissing contest but in my opinion after having lived here for over 2 years, the parliamentary system wins hands down.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the two country's system of government was a game of chess I would say the Parliamentary system would have said checkmate after the first move. Every time I travel to Aus and then come back I notice the huge difference in which system works and which does not. People there are having the best year ever whereas all I see here is frowns, attitude and generally how miserable people are. This is not a pissing contest but in my opinion after having lived here for over 2 years, the parliamentary system wins hands down.

Based on what specifics?

[GabiandVi 34]

How impressive that you defied them and moved here anyway.

Extremely impressive.

Not exactly considering that you need to live somewhere to get a true understanding of what the place is like.

I think you have just defeated your own argument that the US Constitution is "far from admired" abroad by people who have never lived in the US.

[GabiandVi 34]

If the two country's system of government was a game of chess I would say the Parliamentary system would have said checkmate after the first move. Every time I travel to Aus and then come back I notice the huge difference in which system works and which does not. People there are having the best year ever whereas all I see here is frowns, attitude and generally how miserable people are. This is not a pissing contest but in my opinion after having lived here for over 2 years, the parliamentary system wins hands down.

Again, you are talking about the people, not the constitution, or even the system of government, and this is just your observation after two years. I'm sorry, I don't put much weight on one person's anecdotal argument about the happiness of an entire country. We can argue that point, and you may be right. I don't know. Nothing you have said so far is convincing.

And if the parlimentary system of Australia is so much better, why when the majority of people wanted to "lose the Queen" you are still under her? According to my Australian friends, the system was used against you.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Devils advocate.

How ####### the roads and infrastructure is. The number of ghettos and run down areas there are considering this is a first world nation. That being busy does not mean you are successful or are living the dream. Number of degrees or attending an ivy league school does not equal intelligence or success. That the country is not envied by the millions of people who live in other 1st world nations. Constitution is far from admired abroad.

Yeah, I hear the HATE the constitution in Tibet!

Our Infrastructure is not perfect, but I know I can average over 60 miles an hour coast to coast. Not to shabby!

Ghettos? Get off your a&* and get a job (or 2)!

I agree with the statement about Degrees.

Not envied? Who cares!

America, with all of it's faults, is still by far the greatest nation on this earth. Our foreign policies have left alot to be desired over the years. That still doesn't stop the rest of the world from looking to us in times of trouble though does it?

[Heracles 417]

If the two country's system of government was a game of chess I would say the Parliamentary system would have said checkmate after the first move. Every time I travel to Aus and then come back I notice the huge difference in which system works and which does not. People there are having the best year ever whereas all I see here is frowns, attitude and generally how miserable people are. This is not a pissing contest but in my opinion after having lived here for over 2 years, the parliamentary system wins hands down.

Again, you are talking about the people, not the constitution, or even the system of government, and this is just your observation after two years. I'm sorry, I don't put much weight on one person's anecdotal argument about the happiness of an entire country. We can argue that point, and you may be right. I don't know. Nothing you have said so far is convincing.

And if the parlimentary system of Australia is so much better, why when the majority of people wanted to "lose the Queen" you are still under her? According to my Australian friends, the system was used against you.

The queen is hardly a reflection of the parliamentary system. If you think the status quo style of government and laws work then you need to travel more. As I have said earlier I am willing to bet cash that if we went to other international forums and asked them what they thought of the US constitution, it would not be positive. Clearly there is no quantifiable way of proving this apart from looking at the constitution of other nations; if they have any.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Boo-Yah!