Had a rant about the constitution, lost it :(

Is one of the things worth valuing about it not that it can be amended?

and if so do you not have to talk about how it should be amended?

Sure, @ora -- it shouldn't be.

i guess i'm skeptical that any man-made system is perfect...

Yeah? Well, likewise. There are little things I would change if I could just change them. That's different from saying it should be amended in the real world, though.
Also, skepticism that something could be perfect is a terrible reason to change it. You wait until you have something specific that needs to be changed; you don't sit around trying to figure out how it must be imperfect.

@ orathaic

Was the intended rant about the Constitution directed at me or semck?

I think it was at you, GF. I just jumped in.

@ semck - Thanks

@ orathaic

Are you referring to the United States Constitution with regard to amendments? If so, I feel that the Constitution is just fine the way it is. I do not know of any proposed amendments that would be necessary to improve it. It has evolved to the point that it really can't get any better.

@gunfighter, the rant was directed at the idea that the American constitution is perfect - it included some bits about American patriotism.

Basically railing against, what i feel, is the overzealousness of some Americans when it comes to these.

I might have thrown in some comparison to the bible in terms of holding up a particular text as infallible.

I fully admit it was a rant, and it was triggered by something you said, but I don't have any specific problems with the US constitution - regarding what should be changed, I don't even live in America, so i think it would be fairly arrogant of me to tell you how to operate your own country. (i'm sure i've said things in the past which have been arrogant for this reason, perhaps in relation to gun control, but i hope that i manage to make it clear that when i try to explain what kind of place i'd like to live i'm not supposing that i know better than you - even when i find it unbelievable that you don't happen to agree with me...)

I suppose as far as constitutions go, it is entirely possible to have states alter their own constitutions and take specific powers which they are allowed under the US constitution, and thus you wouldn't need much to be changed.

On the other hand, if you take an issue like abortion, which as i understand it, has mostly been determined by interpretations by the Supreme Court, I think it is entirely the place of a Constitutional Amendment to give people the power to vote on the issue instead of letting a small body of judges choose an interpretation.

And the fact that this process may be costly is little or no excuse in my mind.

wow, that was much longer than i was planning... (watching the west wing at the moment, i'm mostly going to blame that :)

oh, and i'm not saying how to amend the constitution regarding abortion, it just happens to be the first issue that came to mind which wasn't something the writers of the constitution had in mind when the wrote it...

@ orathaic

I agree that it is wrong to let a panel of appointed judges decide anything as important as abortion, you also have to be very careful with constitutional amendments. They're hard to pass for a reason. I am strongly pro-life. That being said, I don't think it is right to use a constitutional amendment to ban a specific thing like abortion. They tried to ban alcohol with an amendment and look how that turned out.

As for guns, I am strongly Second Amendment. I don't really feel like a debate on guns right now, but I will say that the only thing wrong with the Second Amendment is that it is not clear enough regarding an individual's right to own and carry regardless of military service, which should be made clear.

I also realize that the US Constitution is made for America and is not compatible with every culture. Obviously, we have the Second Amendment because America has, and has always had, a "gun culture" that most other countries simply don't have. Americans love guns and their usefulness at defending life and property.

Governing documents made by human hands are never and never will be perfect. But I believe that the US Constitution is pretty damned close.

So you could imagine a pro-life constitutional amendment, which was perhaps specific in promoting life, and thus might be interpreted as meaning that the life of the mother should not be put at risk.

(this, by the way, is the legal interpretation of the Irish Constitution, thus from three (?) cases a suicidal woman is entitled to an abortion under irish law - and no other circumstance - and while i'm pro-choice, that might be a position you could get behind)

I don't expect you to actually write a water-tight, fool-proof, amendment, we're just arguing on principle...

You can cut the military if you convince the EU to chip in

@ orathaic

A pro-life amendment is so unlikely that it's barely reasonable to talk about it even hypothetically. That being said, I would be in favor of a pro-life amendment. That is the correct process if you disagree with the Supreme Court's decision (Roe v. Wade)

Once again, I think it's completely silly to talk about it due to the astronomical probability of it happening. As a pro-lifer (with limited exceptions), I think the court screwed up Roe v. Wade. I view the fetus as a human being with all of the inherent rights of a human being. I also believe that the baby's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy/freedom of choice.

@ loowkey

Frankly, I don't trust the EU to help out with keeping world peace. Europeans have started to show a lack of *balls* when it comes to world affairs. The combined armies of Europe are smaller than (fact check?) the US military. In any case, I don't want to depend on the Euros for help if the shit hits the fan. We're seeing increasing anti-American (or at least a reluctance to back America in global geopolitical conflicts) sentiment in Europe. Whether that is deserved or not is not my concern.

The point is that the only person you can trust is yourself. That concept applies to countries as well. I think America should achieve energy independence so that we can withdraw from the Middle East. We need to refocus on what kept us out of a lot of shit for the first ~100 years of our existence: Minding our own damn business when it comes to world affairs.

I advocate a strong military because:
A) It guarantees peace and stability within our borders, which has a huge economic benefit
B) It discourages attacks against us
C) It stimulates the economy (Military Keynesian economics)
D) If a conventional shooting war were to erupt, we could end it quickly and decisively due to our large military

À big country will always have big problems. Being European and not anti-american, but anti-socialism. People don't like Americans because their morals, who cares about guns and pro-life and sex before mariage. Live your own life and let live!

American military spending constitutes 43% of world military spending; would Americans stop being paranoid if it finally went over 50%?

I will only stop being paranoid if it goes over 100%, uly.

Poor you.

@Gunfighter:

A) Do we need a military as large as it is now (capable of fighting 2 simultaneous land wars overseas) just to protect peace and stability within our borders? And exactly how large is the purported economic benefit and does it cover the cost of increased military expenditure?
B) Canada, your next door neighbour, has a very small military and I don't see them being attacked any time soon.
C) The money could be spent on something like education or health, which would benefit health workers/teachers and so expand consumption in the same way as putting the money in the military would, while also providing a tangible benefit to society. Or you could just lower the tax, and when everyone has more money in their pockets they can spend more. I am not sure whether Military Keynesian economics are even valid. Keynes proposed that government spending should be used on "peace and prosperity" not war.
D) Who is going to attack the US in the first place? No-one is going to fight a conventional shooting war with the US, because they'd run the risk of getting nuked.

@ Hoestien

That's what I'm referring to. Americans love guns. Half of all Americans are pro-life. Sex before marriage, no one cares except for evangelicals (not that there's anything wrong with being opposed to it). And why do Europeans care about our policy about guns, abortion, and fornication?

@ ulytau

That's the thing. It's not just about money. It's about size and technology. Our military is smaller than China's in terms of personnel, and they spend a lot less than us. That's because they don't pay their troops very much, don't train them very much, and save money on research and development by stealing most of their technology from elsewhere. My point is that you cannot fairly compare military expenditure. You have to compare size and technology. Even if we do spend 43% of all world military expenditure, most of that is going directly back into our economy.

@ Gobbledydook

Nice to see you again. It's been a while.

"Do we need a military as large as it is now (capable of fighting 2 simultaneous land wars overseas) just to protect peace and stability within our borders?"

The short answer is yes. We have to defend our country from outside threats. Believe it or not, there are people out there that do want to disrupt that peace and stability. We have to engage and destroy these people. I would rather fight them somewhere else (i.e. Afghanistan) than risk having them infiltrate America.

"And exactly how large is the purported economic benefit and does it cover the cost of increased military expenditure?"

Um, large? We spend 26% of our budget on the military. That's a big number, and all of it goes to individual servicemen or employees of defense contractors, and they put that money back into the economy. You can look up the exact numbers for yourself.

"Canada, your next door neighbour, has a very small military and I don't see them being attacked any time soon."

So? I see America being attacked or threatened some time soon.

"The money could be spent on something like education or health, which would benefit health workers/teachers and so expand consumption in the same way as putting the money in the military would, while also providing a tangible benefit to society."

My problem with education is this:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html

We keep dumping more and more money into education, but test scores stay the same or drop. Clearly, the education system is broken. The healthcare system isn't much better. The point is that the government is bad at education and healthcare. Actually, if you think about it, national defense is the only thing that the government has always done well.

Besides, military spending does provide a tangible benefit to society.

"Or you could just lower the tax, and when everyone has more money in their pockets they can spend more."

Excellent point. Why don't we cut healthcare and education spending and then cut taxes?

"I am not sure whether Military Keynesian economics are even valid. Keynes proposed that government spending should be used on "peace and prosperity" not war."

While Keynes used the phrase to characterize the relationship between the government and the military-industrial complex (which he perceived to be a negative thing), the phrase is now used to characterize the economic theory of using massive military spending to stimulate the economy as a whole. This theory is obviously controversial, but it is a valid economic theory.

D) "Who is going to attack the US in the first place?"

That's kind of a dumb question. Any number of people, mostly terrorist organizations.

"No-one is going to fight a conventional shooting war with the US, because they'd run the risk of getting nuked."

I really don't think that nuclear weapons are that much of a deterrent. The winning side (which would probably be the US) would never use nuclear weapons because (if they are assumed to be near or in the enemy country's capital) they risk hurting their own troops. Realistically, countries would only resort to nukes as a last-ditch effort if they were on the verge of total defeat. I think that a conventional shooting war between America and a non-nuclear but still powerful nation is not impossible, and would be decided and ended by conventional weapons.

@ ''"Or you could just lower the tax, and when everyone has more money in their pockets they can spend more."

Excellent point. Why don't we cut healthcare and education spending and then cut taxes?''

would putting more money in people's pockets not cause inflation, preventing people from actually gaining anything??

'I really don't think that nuclear weapons are that much of a deterrent'

- a huge deterrent, the North Koreans want nuclear weapons specifically BECAUSE they can be used to deter an american attack. The only kind of attack on america will be a stealth or suicide one because nobody wants to start a conventional war with a nuclear power.

so well done nuclear powers, you've ended conventional warfare as a tactic, now terrorism is the only tactic with any chance of success.

You say that sarcastically, orathaic, but it's actually kind of a big accomplishment, because terrorism has much less chance of success than traditional methods had.

@ orathaic

I meant that nuclear weapons would not be used by the victorious side in the event of a conventional war. If Country X (a non-nuclear power) started a war with America, America would defeat Country X with conventional weapons.

Also, there are ways around a nuclear reprisal if Country X is a nuclear power. Country X could eliminate America's nuclear capability by targets strikes on America's missile silos and missile subs, or severely disrupting the chain of command. Both are near-impossible, but conceivable.

*by targeted strikes*

Apologies, i don't say that sarcastically.

@gunfigther, there will continue to be no conventional war between nuclear powers.

And FYI European nations do far more for international peace than US policy does - stability among our neighbours, the potential to become EU members states (more than just peace+stability, but reform), peace-keeping missions (who went in the guarentee the Lebanese border against Israeli agression?) - The war in Libya which a Frenchman made his crisis... (even alongside the american missiles being fired)

The EU uses sort power in a way which puts the US to shame.

OK sorry ora.

@ orathaic

"And FYI European nations do far more for international peace than US policy does"

Ha. That one made me laugh. Who keeps the world's oceans safe? (where 90% of all trade travels) The United States Navy. Who is more or less singlehandedly leading the charge against radical Islam? The United States. Who would be the first country to intervene on the side of freedom against oppression? The United States.

Incitment of radical Islam does what for international stability again?

Leading the charge making it hard for countries like Egypt to control radical Islam with the more moderate Islam? Putting US military bases in countries where they will act as targets for anti-American sentiment does what?

After decades of the US supporting anti-communist dictators in South America and Africa; an Iraqii dictator against an Iranian populist, not to mention south-east asia (cause i don't know enough history to detail it) - I don't have any clue when the US has EVER sided with freedom against oppression, except the freedom of US companies to make favourable contracts with foreigners.

The US has pushing it's weight around for sound economic reasons, and that is the only reason other people are pissed off. When you support a tyrant in Saudi Arabia, with military aid which is used to put down their own people, Saudi muslims get pissed off with America, and that (along with their failure to over-throw the Saudi regime) is what lead to the World Trade Center attacks.

Who defends the worlds oceans? I don't know, but considering there is only one part of the world which is suffering from major piracy, i'd guess every stable nation in the world with a reasonable coastline and has an interest in trade defends the worlds oceans.