The real truth is that this is a constitutional oligarchy that was established 300 years ago by slave owning white men who thought they invented the idea of "freedom." And suddenly, me, I am born 300 years later and still have to subscribe my cultural values to a jaundiced piece of old paper signed by a majority of men whose intellectual and moral integrity could be combated by a contemporary fifth grader. And yet... I'm free.
I think that using a 300 year old constitution as a kind of sacrosanct document intended to delineate the boundaries of human freedom, is just as silly as using a 4,000 year old book to teach human’s moral truths—moral truths which their own minds first validated before transferring that validation onto the document itself. Freedom evolves. Morality evolves. Information evolves. It is emergent-- becoming, not being. And any constitution which does not take these facts into consideration (because, in truth, this and a million other facts of human nature were not known at this point in time either), cannot be the most moral assessment of the facts. I think the reason why most avowed constitutionalists are also fundamental Christians, is because they both like the idea of a “document,” signed by some paternally, apotheosized father-figure, dictating the role and rules of socio-humanity. It’s safe, assuring, and emotionally satisfying to know you are in the good hands of family. The truth is colder than that, far colder. But lies… ah, lies, sustain us. They are warmth in the night, light in the maddening void of space, comfort on an island of discontent. Tell a man one truth which goes against his heart’s desire and he will hate you forever—tell that same man a lie he loves, and his love will flare so bright as to rival the umbrage of giants.
The point is, the constitution continues to be exploited with zero fail safes. Short of picking up ineffective rifles in the face of a mechanized military. It's ideas were great. It's execution sucked.
I think that people just refuse to see the difference. They say, "human liberty, personal autonomy, privacy of property, these are all good ideas. Since the Constitution supports it, a Constitutional government must be the BEST way to achieve these ends." But obviously in the light of this critical failure, it wasn't.
Wait until we have a new Supreme Court. The definition of the various parts change with the composition of the Supreme Court.
@Cuterthanpaul,
United States have not new constitution , but we change our old constitution when we need changes in our constitution.
@John-barry,
Your English sucks. I suspect that you have no business saying "we," because i very much doubt that you are an American. In fact, i suspect you are not even a human; rather, i suspect that you are a very lame content bot.
