Which is more important: The Constitution or The USA

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I was watching a show about the Presidents of the USA and while watching the Presidents that existed during and just prior to the Civil War a question came to me. The question is which is more important the Constitution or The Nation of the USA?

Now in the ideal world the Constitution of the USA is indeed the best thing for the whole of the USA. Yet there have been times that one or another political force argued that something was very needed for the USA, yet that very thing was neither openly or subjectively supported by the constitution. I for one believe that the ending of slavery was one of those issues. While the Constitution in no way forced, and still doesn't, its member states to remain a part of the USA it was important go to war to keep the USA united and to end slavery. Although I do think slavery would have ended naturally on its own, it doesn't make invalid the conflict to end it.

Which is more important the USA or the Constitution?

If one sticks to the legal frame work of the Constitution many of the actions of the United States Government are not supported by the Constitution. It takes a lot of "the spirit of the" to think that the above statement isn't true. Yet many of these actions that are not supported by the Constitution are also things generally embraced by the population. So the question remains when the elected government wants to take a action that is neither supported or allowed by the Constitution but is popularly supported (yet not enough for a amendment to the Constitution) should the government be allowed to do it?

Comments

FALSE Dichotomy

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

The nice thing about the Constitution is you can AMEND it if necessary.

There is no *OR* here.

Also - yes, historically there have been actions of the government that were not supported by the Constitution as interpreted *NOW*. The interpretation of the laws are in **CONTEXT** to the times and societal norms, which is why there are sometimes changes and reversals of decisions.

If the elected government wants to take action that is not allowed -- then they shouldn't. But since the Constitution is fairly vague and broad, it would indeed be a peculiar scenario.


ALSO notice - the US is bound by treaties and the Geneva Convention, not just the Constitution. Sometimes the question is if an action is allowed by international law...not just our Constitution

Re: FALSE Dichotomy

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I reject the idea that treaties trump the Constitution.

Re: FALSE Dichotomy

[savagemind.livejournal.com]

Some good points.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The Constitution is more important that the "nation" (the USA is a country, not a nation). Nations can come or go, but the development of constitutio libertatis has universal applicability.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I don't think the country is that important. I mean I don't see secession as the threat that most Americans do. If Texas gains independence again and prospers, then power to the Republic of Texas. As for the remaining 49 states, I think they'll survive just fine without Texas.

On the other hand, the constitution is a remarkable document. But like the Bible or the Koran, it remains open to interpretation. It is the spirit of the document that should be maintained. For the Bible; Do unto others and Love thy God. For the the Constitution; Liberty and Justice for all.

I think the spirit of the Constitution gets lost on literal study of words on the page(s). Too much effort is put into free speech, freedom of the press, the right to bare arms, etc. But doing the right thing is unwritten in the Constitution. Not that the right to bare arms, etc. is unimportant. The specifics are required for implementation.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

"I think the spirit of the Constitution gets lost on literal study of words on the page(s)."

But here lay the problem with "the spirit of the" argument. Who says what the spirit of it is? Seldom do the people making such arguments go back to the writings and remarks of those who wrote it. More often then not they simply twist the constitution such that it appears to look like it might support what they want. Anyone can do that.

With enough twisting one could make anything support anything else.

[gillen.livejournal.com]

It's time to stop fixing up grandpa's old chevy and buy ourselves a brand new car.

[savagemind.livejournal.com]

I agree. I say we adopt something similar to what the UN wrote up...hmm...can't seem to find a link to it.

[blindgeoff.livejournal.com]

Well, the President takes an oath to defend The Constitution not the country... and the oath is crafted to ensure that he does so to the best of his ability - the founding fathers wished to make it clear that there is no 'wiggle room' on this. The Pres is allowed no interprative power in deciding to defend the constitution at all.

As for treaties trumping the constitution? Article 6: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made (emphasis mine), or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

"and all Treaties made (emphasis mine),"

But if a treaty isn't Constitutional it has no standing. For example if you agree to a treaty that strips all power from state governments, that is unconstitutional and thus the treaty is unconstitutional.

The People are more important

[savagemind.livejournal.com]

The borders of the United States have changed considerably over the centuries and will inevitably do so again. Lands may be added or subtracted. Will the value of the territory change depending upon whether or not they can vote in our national elections? The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times since it was written and occasionally an amendment has had to be removed. What's the value of the Constitution with or without the added amendments? With future amendments or with removed amendments?

The way that most people use "America" and "the Constitution" they're treated as little more than abstract concepts. When people talk about "America" they are often talking about our policies, our behavior, and our way of life. All of these things change and are sometimes good and sometimes bad. When people talk about the Constitution it is usually as a way of not addressing an issue in a critical way.

Both the United States and her Constitution are inherently flawed. A land taken from the natives in a genocide spanning centuries, an economy built on the backs of slaves who never received any restitution for their work, and a document written by the owners of those slaves that contains a Bill of Rights that were only ever granted to one race and one gender until only recently in our history.

Both the USA and the Constitution (should) exist for the sole purpose of creating prosperity and protection for the people. For this reason, both the land and the laws that govern it need to be adapted from time to time.

So, to answer your question: Neither. The question is meaningless. It's the people that matter.

Re: The People are more important

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Good answer

Re: The People are more important

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

You have been predictable again. What I take away from your response is that you hate the USA. The question is not meaningless, except if you have a deep seeded hate for the USA... which you seem to have, which isn't a shock coming from a liberal.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The Constitution should be more important, but some people seem to think otherwise and others just want power regardless of principles.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I agree completely.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the idea that the Constitution is a "Living Document". If by "Living Document" you mean it can be alter by amendments then I would agree, BUT if you anything you can twist it to mean and ignore the letters but focus on the "spirit" of it then you are not following the Constitution only following what you what at the moment and twisting the constitution so that it is made to look like it supports what you want.

Any group can twist any document.

[mdinkins.livejournal.com]

"USA--a "land taken from the natives in a genocide spanning centuries,"

*sigh* ok, again.. .the US has a very unique feature in that took almost no land from natives. The land was taken by Europeans (from "native americans" who took it from other "native americans") and the vast majority of it was purchased by the US. I throw down the gauntlet on this one... show how the US was not the most honorable in the situation.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Another hate the USA person... bet you voted for Obama.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Which is more important the USA or the Constitution?

That's like asking "what's more important, my TV or the user manual?"

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

This.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Slavery would still be practiced in parts of the South today in the absence of the war of 1860. In some parts of the country, slavery is a virtue. And in Saudi Arabia (our butt-buddies of the Middle East) slavery was legal into the 1960s. No reason the more powerful US wouldn't have had the same idea. And besides....the Constitution clearly authorized slavery and any attempt to abolish it would have required a 13th Amendment, which would have provoked a civil war that united the entire Slave South.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Maybe it is hard to tell. Large scale slavery like that on the farms would have ended like it did in most of the colonial powers, even with out a war, as it was expensive to keep slaves and new technology made it cheaper to simply hire people for periods of harvest then to keep a year round slave population.

But you are correct when you point out small scale, owning of one or two slaves, does exist today in Africa, Middle East, and some parts of Asia. It is possible that practice may have still existed in the USA with out the civil war, but it is also possible that laws against that practice could have been past with out the civil war, and since such a practice was not keep economically such laws would have been less likely to spawn a war. In addition the owning of slaves on the small scale would have to compete with hired workers which would be cheaper then a year round slave.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Both pale in importance compared to the value of the worker. We must protect our pure blood from the taint of lesser races. We must seize back our wealth from the capitalist pigs and return it to the deserving working man. It is our right to conquer the nations of the lesser races and save humanity through purification.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

All citizens must have their identification papers on their person.
No citizen will go out in public after curfew without prior permission.
There will be no assembling of more then 2 people at any time.
All citizens must answer to the authorities.
There is only one authority.
The punishment for violation or dissent is immediate death.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

serious answer: The supreme court exists as a branch of government to check the powers of the president and the people (represented by our representatives) in order to keep actions in line with the constitution.

What specific actions are you talking about that you feel are against the constitution?

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

The recent ruling on property rights and the government taking private land from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen on the ground that the other private citizen could pay more taxes then the first... comes to mind.