Johnw1104 said:
I disagree, by the way, in regards to the way we should perceive the constitution. We must indeed view it as being of a "sacred" nature, as it is the lynchpin that both defines and limits the powers of our government while offering us certain protections from them. It has only the authority that we imbue it with, as otherwise it is simply a piece of parchment, and so we most hold it in higher esteem than any other document in the land and be vigilant in our enforcement of it. It is a problem that we and many other nations are coming to face as we become increasingly secular. In a world without oaths, absolutes and a divinely ordained set of ethics and morality that before carried an authority no mortal man could touch, we now must prove to ourselves that, going forward, we can continue to guarantee rights (previously endowed by our creator) and protections for people through a respect and reverence for the rule of law, and the only hope of being on the same page in that regard is with the judicial backbone that is the constitution. Really, the constitution has come to fill the void that religion once did; it is the Ten Commandments for our secular world. There's a reason Machiavelli suggested that Numa Pompilius, the legendary man who introduced religion and ritual to the romans, was the most important King of the Romans, as where there is religion one can introduce ideas that are taken at face value (aka "truths") and treasured by the population, providing stability. Our constitution, in my mind, fills that role as while many may not like some amendments contained within, they still respect the authority it holds until it is amended further. It is perhaps the only document I can think of that the majority of Americans, regardless of background, express an interest in protecting. I agree with you, then, that laws ought to be written for the betterment of the people, but they also must be in line with the stipulations of the constitution. If they aren't, amend it. We may find ourselves in far worse times when it is in the nature of man to turn on one another one day as has happened time and time again, and I hope we still have this document to limit our options and protect us from ourselves should that day indeed come. Besides, it will always be easier to remember a few dozen amendments than to comb through thousands upon thousands of often contradictory laws that have us questioning what our particular rights are at any given moment. |
I didn't mean one should throw out the constitution. What I meant is: any nation's constitution is very important. It lays the basic judical and ethic groundwork for a nation. But, we shouldn't hold it to a sacred degree where we wouldn't dare change anything.
In this case I look to Emperor Justinianus of the Byzantine Empire. The Roman law had become a mess, a pactchwork of laws, amendments, repeals and appeals. Justinianus managed to get the Roman law streamlined, bundled and modernised into the Corpus Juris Civilis. Thus, what I mean is: You can update parts of a constitution with additional laws and amendments, once every period (I'm talking multiple decades or even centuries), a constitution should be re-written and some fundamental laws and amendments should be enshrined in the new consitution, while parts that are irrelevant to the present day and age should be scrapped.
In Belgium here, we have had 6 reforms of state and we have 6 parliaments constantly making laws, royal decrees and ammendments. Our Belgian Law Book has become a patchwork to the point where it's impairing our judical system as well since the basic constitution is still the same one from 1831.
