Imitated by whom ?

Most European States, at least, have a parliamentary constitution, not a presidential one.


1) The topic is the US Constitution here, not the UK one (which, by the way, came to be before the US) ; let's stick to the topic please.

2) I know why the Electoral College was designed for. However, this was in the 18th century when the US President did not have the power it has now. The provision is totally outdated now and, in fact, has almost brought your country to the verge of a civil war in 2000. However, the rules for changing this are so complicated - besides the fact that it would hurt some vested interests in the smaller States - that it has become impossible to do so.

A constitution which is so rigid that it cannot amend itself and adapt to the evolution of society is a bad constitution.

__________________
______________________Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag.”___________________Alexander Solzhenitsyn

First, I didn't see him mention the UK at all. Secondly, the UK doesn't have a constitution per se.

It is in no way outdated; it is just as relevant now as it was then. We are not a direct democracy and majority does not rule here. Also, the United States was no where near another civil war in 2000. Who filled your head with that junk?

Our Constitution can be amended. However, it is not a living constitution, and thank the gods for that. The thing is, the rights and powers laid out in our Constitution are inalienable (freedom of speech, right to bare arms, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc...) and can never be infringed upon.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

No need. Just about ANY parliamentary Constitution will do this.

Well, that's your opinion.

What others? Anyway, I could, but why bother? I'll just ask you to prove your own claims first.

You don't know what the word socialism means. Or the word definition, for that matter.

I have no idea what your point is. Treaties are how nations formalize their relations. The only way you could do without them would be to close down your borders and stop acknowledging the existence of the universe outside them. Which you're entitled to do, I suppose.

Whatever.

[quote=ThorHammer;1137983]You have stated my position correctly. It would be welfare-states, not the Union of States that may employ a welfare-state economic model at the local level. Yes, since States of the Union would be current nation-states that we have now, it would be up to them to decide how best to provide for their local populace.

We are referring to federalism with individual, sovereign states -- not a unitary government where the "states" would be more like provinces or counties -- simple appendages of the central and unitary State. A more perfect Union would simply entail more formal ties to simplify intercourse between the several states of the Union. What the states cannot do for themselves very well, is promote and provide for the Union of states that are already bound by a global economy.

Since you don't admit to the UN being a real global government, what we currently do have is a global Anarchy similar to that which caused our Founding Father's to establish a more perfect Union after recognizing the inadequacies of the AoC.

Since we have a common law system, gun control laws don't simply go away; they are usually changed over time by precedent. However, in the US, there would be no question of gun rights if people who keep and bear arms were also in a well regulated militia.

The purpose of a global government is to better promote and provide for the general Welfare of the Union. It is not about which politician can abuse the most power for his personal glory. Currently, our global anarchy has no effective solution to problems that are affecting them from regions experiencing excessive anarchy. A federal UN government could ameliorate those problems by simply promoting and providing for the general welfare of the Union; roads and aqueducts are a good starting point.

Our own federal Constitution makes no distinction in gender and has a Privileges and Immunities clause (IV,2), yet it still took over one hundred years; and, a civil war for some of our fellow citizens (both male and female) to obtain the right to vote. Slavery should never have been an issue in the US, after the first generation of natural born citizens nor should women's right to vote when they simply petitioned for the right to vote. That issue would best be resolved by the members at the convention to explore what they would be willing to accept, in return for a more perfect Union. Much as the judiciary wrestled with this problem within the last century, I don't think there is an easy solution, overnight. However, with a US style Constitution, there would be a ready made path for greater levels of equality. I don't imagine that any states would want to return to the Iron Age, simply to enforce principles that are no longer as relevant in a modern world.

Problems would be less of an issue if, for example, China and Taiwan are both members of a more perfect Union. Is the US or Puerto Rico any worse off for not Puerto Rico not being a US state? I think it could become a moot point by having a better Union of states that can engage in commerce more freely.

We have the historical example of the US and a more recent example of the UN. Many more states are members than are not members. In my view, the question is what type of more perfect Union would induce any reticent states to bind together for their mutual benefit and general welfare?

Thorharmer, my answer was to Impugn, not to you.

But never mind, just a few words :
The UK does not have any written constitution, but thanks god it has a constitution with a definite set of rules drawing both from written documents and from custom.

I know that the US constitution can be amended. However, concerning this particular point, it is almost impossible, due to the majorities required both from Congress and Senate and the over-representation of smaller States within. Although the expression "civil war" may have been a bit far fechted, I agree, you will not deny that the election of Georges W. Bush was very controversial to say the least. I am not a US citizen, yet, I know for sure that as a "citizen" of just any nation I would not like the most important representative of my nation be elected by a minority of its people.

I therefore insist and sign : considering that the role of the President of the United States since the 18th century has dramatically changed in the 20th - 21st century, it would be sensible to adapt the Constitution on that point.

[Besides, reg. Impugn's post, it is arrogant and naive to draw a feeling of superiority from immobilism.]

__________________
______________________Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag.”___________________Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Under your premise; Slavery, Woman Rights,.... would have never been changed. Countries change that is the nature of things. Because we change our constitution regularly is far more limiting to our goverment of the day. Our constitutions are far more detailed..

Why have you soo much against a country democratically changing the rules it lives under...

The op-ed is nothing more than a lillipution taunt at the USA. Very sad that it even made it to print. Yet, some take it seriously and think it's a good idea. If it goes that way, then more stars for our flag, bacause that is the only way they could have a vote without war.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

So you don't believe in Democracy then... You believe some people should be allowed to have more power than others. So you believe in a ruling class..

Nah. We just have to buy the votes. That's how it works, isn't? Free Trade and all that...

Try it and you'll have a fed at your door toute suite (using Interpol as proxy, no doubt). It's called the Foreign Agents Registrant Act (FARA). If it's that important to you to play with the big boys, good luck with that. But, we could put your star next to that of Louisiana to make you feel more welcome.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Pardon me while I laugh. Well, whatever helps you feel better about it...

What? You wouldn't object?

Concerning another state in historic Palestine. Who believes that our global economy would be better off by having that issue unresolved?

What objections can their be to, either recognition of another state in historic Palestine, or a convention for establishing a greater Israel that includes the current disenfranchised territories?

From my perspective, with another state in historic Palestine, the UN would have better recourse in assisting it develop its economy and infrastructure.

With a hypothetical greater Israel option, the populace would be integrated with the current populace of that state and its economy.

Would the populace of the territories be worse off under either scenario?

??? What does this have to do with the topic?

There wasn't another recent thread in the vicinity that included what Europeans may opine concerning a situation, that in my opinion, should have been resolved last millennium.