Why Is the Constitution Considered "Genius"?

Discussion in 'History & Past Politicians' started by upside-down cake, Sep 4, 2014.

  1. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Is it me...or does anyone else fail to see any real genius in the Constitution? I don't believe in religion, but Jesus was simple and concise when he said "love thy neighbor" and that's really the only thing I need to hear to get the message.

    It's also not like the principles of the Constitution were unprecedented. There was the Magna Carta...then there was the freaking French Revolution- perhaps thee most bad-ass testament to freedom and democracy ever. Not only did they liberate themselves, but they declared to take on monarchy and tyranny around the world (I am aware of the distinction between the idealism and the political realities, but just saying...)

    So...what's the big deal?
     
  2. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To be honest judging from all the complaints and issues surrounding to US constitution I wonder if it's fit for purpose in the present age.
    Well it wasn't just the Magna Carta the English and later British government put into place.
    I often see that people say that Britain doesn't have a constitution when in actual fact we do, the difference is that it's a variety of laws which have been built up over time rather than a single document.
    That's not quite true. The committee of public safety as well as the successive revolutionary governments slaughtered many people as well as conscripted citizens to fight the many wars that followed.
    So I wouldn't say that it's the best testament to freedom.
    I think that US culture places a high emphasis on the US constitution other than that I can't really say.
     
  3. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah, there's a lot of foundation myths going about. I don't really see the Constitution as genius or particularly exemplarary or revolutionary. To me it's the next step in a culmination of reforms where people have been rebelling against their governments for more rights, or less oppressions, generally inspred by other people- including the Indians, sadly enough.

    I wonder how many other places fit this description?

    I'm talking about the initial ideals and the popular view of the revolution. It was most certaintly about freedom from monarchy. But revolutions seem to be powered by such sentiments, but ultimately led by the same kinds of people who will pull a Robespierre- going directly against freedom and democracy. That's more a derailment of the populists beliefs of revolution- something that also happened in the US, but not to such an intense degree. I mean...Robespierre really went ham.

    I honestly think they like to market themselves as exemplary, and the funny thing is that they aren't really marketing it to foreigners, who generally can see through American bullpoop a short time after it drops, but to American's themselves who have this internally-oriented view of the outside world- despite having among the most advanced information access systems in the world.
     
  4. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The US Constitution is notable for its balance, more than anything. Most governments up until then did have more than one source of power, (Executive or King, vs Parliament) The US was the first one to write in a Judicial branch, though even they didn't explicitly give it the power to interpret the Constitution, (though that was their implicit intention, as is proved by the fact that very few of the Founding Fathers, most of whom were still alive at the time, objected when it first was done.)

    It also was the first one to carefully define the powers of the military, and to explicitly make the Commander in Chief a civilian. . Many countries could learn from this one innovation
     
  5. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree.
    Sure. There are several nations that have done just that.
    I just mentioned something that I know more about than I do other nations.
    Well if you're talking about theoretical principles behind the revolutionary government then I agree that it was a leap forward for popular rights.
    I think that the whole American exceptionalism is a part of legend building which seems to be the preserve of new nations or relatively new.
    And yes I don't actually see why the US is that great and I'm not saying that it's a bad place.
     
  6. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think that it was the first one to have a judicial branch or even an independent judiciary
    I don't think that would work here.
     
  7. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't understand what the significance of making the Commander in Chief a civilian implies.

    The split of power between branches of government is not unprecedented (ancient Rome's Triumverate for one), but it's really not effective at all. It relies on those three branches competing against one another, or constantly checking one another and not working in collusion with one another. When all three branches decide to do something, it might as well be one branch.

    The powers of the military or any branch are not really defined since the Constitution gives the power to add or amend the Constitution in the future.
     
  8. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is preferable that a government adheres to its higher law than not, but I don't find the constitution especially agreeable. It was a very pro-government, pro-centralization document.

    • Its ambiguity concerning constitutional interpretation has resulted in it being pretty ineffective, and the concept of enumerated powers being effectively ignored.
    • Compared with the Articles, it centralized government to an unacceptable degree.
    • The Articles had a built in amendment mechanism which required unanimous consent, the constitution moved the goal posts.
    • The constitution's language is a nightmare. Higher law must be concise and straightforward, but the enumerated powers are vague and open to broad interpretation.
    • The Bill of Rights is a nice additional protection against government tyranny, but it has resulted in an attitude that government has all power not explicitly denied it.
    • The vast majority of amendments have been steps backward rather than forwards. Reconstruction signaled the end of decentralized government and the start of a vast national expansion.

    If a government is required, then I prefer a confederacy wherein each body is left to determine its own internal policy. Ideally this would not involve a central government at all, but if it must then one with few strictly defined powers should be created. I can't imagine it extracting more than 5% of GDP in taxation.
     
  9. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The genius part of the constitution was at the time the implementation of thoughts which were enlightened and putting them into fundamental constitutional laws. While most of the ideas came from Europe, the implementation into law was the remarkable aspect: the Bill of rights and the three pillars of government

    But the constitution was far form perfect, hence the amendments... But at the time it was quite revolutionary.
     
  10. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Revolutionary isn't genius, but neither was it truly revolutionary or remarkable. As mentioned before, these ideas, obviously, were inspired by other people whose ideas also sparked the French Revolution. It is also known that some of their other remarkable ideas came from the Native Americans. So the "Founding Fathers" did not invent these ideas, the collected them from their environment.

    It's not truly revolutionary in the sense that the iPhone5s is not that much different than the iPhone5c. Governments that increasingly...theoretically...removed power from the central authority (or, at least, a royal figure- monarchy) was very much precedented. It actually has a precedent in ancient Rome during it's tumultuous times. In Greece, which we site so often. Then you can break apart the Constitution and ask what power is truly given to the people...that was not given in the French Revolution.

    Now...we know the French Revolution ultimately came to a grimy end, but that was not because of the ideas presented by the Revolution, but the rather swift overtaking of those ideas by corruption and tyranny and that's a point people fail to distinguish. But the ideas that went into the construction of the French Revolution destroyed by Robespierre's aparrrent madness and Napoleans ambition where various, were very near to that of the Constitution. The Constitution is like the slight revision of the basic former model. A few things here and there turned around.

    Sadly, also, whatever praise was given to the Constitution, even in idealistic terms, this country was the very opposite. At no time where the people ever in charge of this country. Ever. This country was always administered by an elite class that immediately- despite whatever rhetoric appeared in the Constitution- attempted to recreate the system of hierarchy similar to the old world, but instead of the monarchy, it was either a neo-aristocracy, a land-owning class, or a mercantile class, or the American hybridization of all of the above. A land of opportunity for the fortunate and empowered of any class, but not for anyone else. Though the Constitution was not truly unprecendented in many of its areas, (many ideas not expressed by the European sources of liberal idealism came from Native Americans, who were truly revolutionary in that none of them came from the same political climate as other Europeans and so had completely different political views on things) even so, the country began to erode those liberties which it granted, much like the countries of those other nations that sourced these ideas began to roll back on them.
     
  11. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only genius maybe it's elasticity, while many on the right see rigid rules and black and white (pun intended) definitions the actual practice over the years is a living document incorporating that most English of English Common Law, precedent. The nation benefitted also from a cadre of flawed but earnest leaders that had the respect of the people at the beginning. Whether from sheer luck or the actual process powerful leaders showed up at the crucial point to guide the nation.
     
  12. AKRunner88

    AKRunner88 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Founders made the Constitution, intentionally, so it could be a "living constitution," which I think was pretty genius.

    But I don't find it to be the end all, be all of any argument. Just because a document made some hundreds of years ago by smart people for their era exists, doesn't mean we can't learn a thing or two in a couple hundred years and point out flaws.
     
  13. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The ability to change the laws of a nation as one finds necessary is far from innovative and in all cases where such a practice is used, these extensions, reinterpretations, or revisions may progress or retard the general progression of a more free society.
     
  14. Diuretic

    Diuretic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,481
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As has been stated in the thread, the Constitution was collated by the Founding Fathers. If there was any genius - and I think there was - it was right there alongside the courage to seek independence and a new form of state. Think about it, a group of small colonies on the edge of a virtually unknown land-mass, stood up to one of the most powerful states on the globe at that time and not only won a conflict with that state (for many reasons), it actually recovered from its revolutionary condition and created a stable new state with a new form of government (okay, it wasn't that new, but it took from contemporary and historical models and put them together).

    The courage was in putting Enlightenment ideas into a Constitution. Talk about taking a risk! I think though that the Constitution, which was forged in difficult times and through much argument, helped smooth the way for the new state to move from revolution to peaceful society. Where revolution has happened in other places there has either been a failure of the new state or a series of revolutions which eventually led to a more-or-less stable state. The American colonies seem to have got to that happy condition through working out the Constitution and thereby, eventually, agreeing to a set of really useful, workable rules.
     
  15. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The French Revolution failed in less than 20 yrs. The U.S. Constitution is much more concise and specific than the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta didn't establish a government structure, it mainly established the rights of the people.
     
  16. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm talking about the ideals of the French Revolution.

    The French Revolution failed in less than 20 years. The US Constitution failed the second it was passed into law...and ignored.
     
  17. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's been pretty successful. It is what gave our country the ability to go from colony to world power in 120 years.
     
  18. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The US is a successful nation in terms of power and wealth, not virtue. The nation was built on unconstitutional practices.
     
  19. Xanadu

    Xanadu New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because a majority of the US population will defend it. A flag can be a very strong symbolic weapon, people feel pride and will defend it.
    By using politics, every foundation or fundament can be broken apart, also the US constitution (by mass organizing the population, and alter their thoughts and minds and emotional state, or cause an awakening)

    So when politicians use the constitution in their speeches and attack it, lot of people are going to defend it (lot of people with the same attitude, are like a small political 'army')

    By just saying amendments will be taken away (by a politician), is a way to let many people start to defend it more (people start to become more one, with same defending attitude and collective thought)
    If a contitution cannot be altered easly, people their mind can. By politics and manipulation of the mind, the 'militarized' mind, because that is what politics does all the time, it is causing a change in attitude (change of emotional state, which most people don't notice, because evolution, survival is behind it)
    In a way the constitution is 'genius'. But when it was written the founders have forgotten that there are very smart people out there who are able to use words (political strategies) and media (sinds the first telegraph lines and Hollywood, and later came radio and television) to change the mind and thoughts of the masses, and can create political and social 'armies' (organisations inside nations), and when they have organized a majority, they can take over and destroy the 'genius' contitution.

    The part that is missing in the constitution is social engineering and 'marxism' and 'socialsm', in other words mind control tactics and strategies.
    Before 1900s there was no radio, media and television, the founders could never foresee that our technology went that fast over the last century, including the internet.
     
  20. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The constitution was genius because just a decade after the revolutionary war they managed to abolish their system of decentralized government and create what would become a unitary state, not dissimilar from Britain in many degrees.

    Masterstroke of political genius. Madison should be crowned eternal President like Kim Il Sung.
     
  21. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Consolidation of smaller states into larger states is neither genius nor new.

    It has been the pattern of societies ever since the beginning. Empires would be the most prolific example of this.
     
  22. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thomas Jefferson to this day gets praised when all he did was plagiarize from George Mason. He was like the original Kardashian.
     
  23. Pregnar Kraps

    Pregnar Kraps New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2013
    Messages:
    5,871
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you bothered paying attention any time in your current existence you might have realized part of what made the Constitution so brilliant was that before it there was only royalty and monarchies.

    Our fore fathers created a brand new thing.

    An experiment in governance the world had never before seen come about at all or in the way ours did.

    And it has held up remarkably well over the past 200+ years.

    Not a long time as European governments go, but no other representative democracy in the world is older than ours and ours is still going.

    Not withstanding the crisis it is in as a result of the Eboma thugs and liars.

    Our is the Gold standard and it is still vital and relavant and able to accommodate our growth.

    Show me another which has served as well as long and for more people who have created the kinds of success we have within it's structure.

    Absofrickinglutely brilliant.

    EDIT: Oh, and this is a biggee.

    The fore fathers recognized we would have to deal with the issue of slavery SOME DAY and so they allowed for our taking the time to reach that point and when they did guess what was awaiting them?

    The Constitution which stated that all men are created equal. that they are endowed bytheir creator with certain inalienable rights. That amongthese are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    That bit of brilliant farsightedness presaged Lincoln.

    Tell me those men weren't brilliant!
     
  24. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The all men are create equal line is actually in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

    There are two parts of the Constitution I consider genius.

    The Preamble:

    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    And the First Amendment:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
     
  25. mihapiha

    mihapiha Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    do the amendments count? the are as the word suggests "amendments" to the original. I personally thought of only the constitution without the amendments.
     

Share This Page