Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

This, by the way:



. . . was really a puerile cheap shot. Our constitution, for example, prohibits anyone from occupying the office of President for longer than ten years. Under those terms, Mubarak would have been out of office twenty years ago. Such a snotty remark ought to have been beneath your dignity.

The Constitution is government by rules rather than government by men.

The judiciary's powers were shown to be weak when habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil Way and all Chief Justice Taney could do was make his views known. With the political appoinments to the USSC it becomes something of a tool. The age of appointees opens the door for a president in two terms to stack it.

Separation of executive and legislature is the most important feature (feechewer) of the US political system. Such a system enhances executive power and there are forces seeking that objective in all countries. Mr Bush said that he would know what to do if he was a dictator.

A materialist view of modern politics cannot help, if things work well, to result in close contests at elections. Astute politicians will promise no more than needed to win. Landslides are a sign of incompetence.

As amendments to the Constitution require large majorities and close election results tend to rule them out unless the case is obvious.

The growth of the party system which marginalised the power of the monarchy here served to enhance the authority of the US President. The Secretary of the Treasury, and other executive offices, is under presidential patronage and not that of Congress.

But I accept fm's argument that it seems "to work pretty well". Or that it has done up to now. It is really horses for courses.

Our Minister of Health, after listening to months of wrangling about the NHS, simply banged his fist on the desk reportedly shouting "just ******* do it". And it was done. Mr Obama would love to be able to do that and if he has won an election campaigning on the issue he really ought to have the power. He found he couldn't even close Gitmo after promising to do so. The failure to carry the mid-terms in 2010 represents the Jeffersonian position that the government is the only evil. The electorate castrated it.

The continuous struggling to find a constitution for Europe is a measure of the difficulty in a modern industrial setting of agreeing a set of rules. In the 1790s such difficulties were hardly even thought of.

Hiding behind a set of highly ambiguous rules seems to me to be feeble in fast changing periods. Approval ratings of 9% for Congress are today's judgment on the Constitution.

Which is a laugh really because the electorate enfeebles the government and then castigates it for being feeble.

The chaps who wrote the Constitution were very familiar with the English system and took it as a model. There are experts who think they misunderstood the English system or were unaware that it was becoming obsolete as industrialisation gathered pace.

The Spice Girls are a very important aspect of our cultural heritage and only a misogynist could possibly think otherwise.

The Constitution sets up how our government works.

Surely your government has rules that have been put to paper. Or can the sovereign still imprison people on a whim over there?

But... they're the Spice Girls!!
On second thought, they are completely out of date, like the US Constitution.

Should we rely on Russel Brand as the guide to English cultural heritage.

Our constitution may not have prevented Thatcher imposing the poll tax, but the people did. Unfortunately the people were unable to stop Blair taking us into war with Iraq. You may not care what the rest of the world thinks about your constitution, but some of your countrymen seem to think we should hold it in the same amount of reverence as you do, and we don't.

The constitution allowed Bush to steal the election from Gore, despite winning the popular vote, and has stopped Obama implementing Universal Health Care. Although it didn't seem to stand in the way of Bush passing the Patriot Act. In short, everytime we hear about the constitution on the news it seems to act as a barrier to progress, not a force for good. I'm not saying that's the case, but that's how it appears over here.

I'm sorry you thought my remarks about oppressive regimes were a cheap shot, they weren't meant to be. I was trying to express that someone in an oppressive regime would envy the freedoms that your constitution affords its citizens. As I don't live in an oppressive regime I don't envy your constitution, our definitions of freedom are different anyway. I don't particularly want to own a gun, but I do see Universal Health Care as a right. I wasn't necessarily trying to start a fight, but just pointing out how strange and anachronistic your reverence of an 18th Century document seems to us.

Other than this particular conversation the only people who insist on quoting, or more likely misquoting, the constitution are H20Man and Bill RM, which may have something to do with my perception of it as a force for good. In fact a lot of people over here did admire your constitution and system of government, until recent events soured the argument.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/13/republicans-abuse-system-not-american-way[/url]

We hear plenty of stories about people being prevented from voting in the USA now. There are no such stories here. Nor are there stories about districts in the UK treating immigrants differently than in other districts.

There are no simple ways of talking about voting. Anybody who indulges in such nonsense is patronising people.



Lots of Americans care what the world thinks of them. The sulkies are hardly relevant in a global economy.

Is that a serious question?

One thing I've never understood is how someone so idiotic and unfunny as Russell Brand can become so popular over there. He's not the only one, Piers Morgan and Benny Hill as well. Why do you admire our garbage so much?

No. You imprison people on the whim of a hotel chambermaid with a very dubious past. One of your judges was caught sending juveniles to prison to keep the prison busy for profit. I don't think Conrad Murray would have been charged here let alone given the maximum.

Our prisons are known as Her Majesty's Prison X, Y or Z. That's probably why they are more humane than yours seem to be if programmes about them are anything to go by.

Hang on izzy. Benny Hill was a great talent.

Oh God no, and worst of all he's from Eastleigh

Benny Hill represented his generation of Englishmen. My aunts in Germany watched his show (dubbed in German). Surely, he can be considered an "ambassador to the world" for British culture.

God, I bloody hope not.

wrongedy wrong wrong. The court case was entirely a constitutional issue. Document doesnt guarantee that you always get your way

See above response. Its only now being tested in the courts.


Was it merely by a mob rule? or a rule of law?. If the latter than it had to be based upon some encoded precedent or law. PS, your constitution is based upon a "rule of law" which is also based upon court decisions. That must be based upon certin unyielding principles no? I cant see pi changing whenever the Church of ENglnd decises that its gonna give a trial balloon to Binblical Inerrancy.

Here in the US, WITH RESPECT TO THIS TOPIC, we have, historically, reached our decisions based upon the first amendment clauses. WE DONT AND WONT HAVE A STATE RELIGION PERIOD. Those of you who wish to push for same based upon your beliefs can justgo somehwere else to proselytize, Most of US USers arent listening (except for maybe gungansake and a few others who live in another dimension of time and space).

That he can wande. British culture lives on despite the osmotic permeation of American PC into the South East.

Actually, the constitution did not allow Bush to steal the election, the Supreme Court did that by interferring in the decision of the Florida Supreme Court--but we live in a society which knows no higher constitutional authority than the Supremes--so, despite the fact that the cosntitution clearly leaves such matters to the states, the Supremes interferred. I've not said the system is perfect, but nor is it reasonable to equate it with a framework for authoritarian government.

Because some yob thinks we (or anyone else) should revere the constitution is not evidence that all Americans do, that a majority of Americans do or even that a significant minority of Americans do. Americans like the constitution because it has served us well for two centuries, and it is malleable, which is also shown by two centuries of our history.

I'd be interested to know how you claim the constitution prevents Mr. Obama from implementing universal health care. I'd say the political cowardice of the Congress prevents that, just as the political cowardice of the Congress allowed Mr. Bush to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, the constitution gives Congress the power to make war--it's not the fault of the constitution that Bush was able to stampede the political cowards in the Congress into giving him war powers.

Once again, i see no reason to speak of our "reverence" for the document. As to it being a product of the 18th century, it has shown itself to be surprisingly useful despite not meeting your standard of modernity. I find that people who "revere" the constitution tend to do so only in to the extent that they don't see their own personal oxen being gored.

I've never heard of Russell Brand nor Piers Morgan and can't think why anyone would claim these two nobodies are highly popular in the States. As for Benny Hill, once you've seen a couple of his 30 minute programs, you've basically seen every gag he has. That's probably why he was relegated to late night television. Even the somewhat better English comedies have only been widely seen on the Public Broadcasting System. Are you being Served, To the Manor Born, Keeping Up Appearances and a few others have been popular on PBS, but not widely broadcast.

What an idiot you are!

Your constitution has the system of electoral colleges that allowed Bush to steal the election even though he lost the popular vote. Both Russell Brand and Piers Morgan are doing very well by all accounts, they probably appeal to a younger audience. At least they're not over here any more.