Why some countries use such old constitutions?

[Kontra Kommando]

The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times; it is a "living document".

Fun-fact: Thomas Jefferson, who was its main author, suggested that it should be re-written every 20 years.

nxGangrel said:

If the USA got rid of the constitution the power of federal Government would be stronger than ever. We already live in an economy worse than what the colonials fought against in the 1700's. The US constitution was supposed to be about actual freedom for individuals, specifically from the Bill of Rights, as well as balance and hold power together. (if there are any errors to what I'm saying please correct me if I'm wrong.)

However, since the very beginning, people have been trying to empower the Federal government. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams were all Federalists. They had zero-faith in the public, and wanted to establish a system similar to the UK; but without having to be taxed by the king. They were the ones that established the electoral college, and wanted to maintain an hierarchical aristocratic society for the wealthiest Americans. Many of the founding fathers wanted to utilize the federal gov't to buttress the power of the elites, and limit upward mobility. Thomas Jefferson was more inclined to establish a gov't that was more open-democracy, with limited government intervention. Ultimately, the federalists lost influence, after they created hugely unpopular bill, the Alien and Sedition act, which made it illegal to criticize the gov't. This is what gave Thomas Jefferson, and his party; the Democratic-Republicans; the thrust they needed to win the presidency.

Jefferson was firmly against the application of the federal government in handling major aspects society. However, his view somewhat changed after the war of 1812; when the British Army burned down the original White House. Prior to this, he believed that the country would be better off if it were defended by state militias. But eventually conceded to the idea that the gov't should in fact have a large standing national military force, and that the gov't should help to facilitate its needs, such as the industrialization of cities, for production.

[Phml]

There you go again Phml with your Middle-Eastern philosophizing. Tell me why an AMERICUN would ever allow a sand person's perspective to change our founding fathers' way of life?

I'm French, you smartass, and the Coran isn't 2000 years old, you double smartass. All religions are cancer when they hold too much power, and the US is as good an example of that as Iran.

[Bucket]

the_miano said:

The Articles of Confederation was the original constitution of the US. It's purpose was to give individual states rights instead of having a strong Federal Government overpower them. These sovereign states would be like individual countries. I often wonder if the US would have been better off without the Federal System. Just a thought.

Our founders unilaterally decided that it wouldn't be - by way of seeing the Articles of Confederation in practice. They discovered that it would have been impossible to pay for the war they just fought without federal government. Why do you think the Constitution replaced them?

Fulgrim said:

Of course when it does pass people will try to blame one side of the isle while ignoring the fact that both sides signed off on it.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/22/look-fast-track-bill-shows-wrong-thing/

Republican reps are for it, save for the Teabaggers.
Democrat reps are against it, save for the right-leaning corporatists.
Interestingly Congress is more divided than the general public. Both left and right agree that the TPP is a bad idea.

[Kontra Kommando]

Phml said:

I'm French, you smartass, and the Coran isn't 2000 years old, you double smartass. All religions are cancer when they hold too much power, and the US is as good an example of that as Iran.

The United States is certainly influenced by religion, as are most other nations. But saying the whole of the US comparable to Iran is incorrect. Though there are parts of the United States that would help to make that case.

[Linguica]

The American government is completely broken. I won't even get into the two party system and how great that has turned out to be, or how only an idiot could believe that every single national politician isn't under the thumb of the interests that fund their neverending (re)election campaigns. The fact that you need a 2/3 supermajority in both houses, and then the consent of 3/4 of all state legislatures, in order to amend the Constitution means that barring extreme circumstances, it can never be used to do anything remotely political (i.e., anything remotely important). Instead we have somehow come to believe that it's all right for legitimate social issues to be resolved one way or the other by nine people in robes who invariably vote based on their own political opinions but pretend that their edicts are just common-sense interpretations of an old dusty document.

[Technician]

Avoozl said:

Both versions of Jesus are terrible.

The Islamic version is an even bigger dick.

[Kontra Kommando]

Linguica said:

The American government is completely broken. I won't even get into the two party system and how great that has turned out to be, or how only an idiot could believe that every single national politician isn't under the thumb of the interests that fund their neverending (re)election campaigns. The fact that you need a 2/3 supermajority in both houses, and then the consent of 3/4 of all state legislatures, in order to amend the Constitution means that barring extreme circumstances, it can never be used to do anything remotely political (i.e., anything remotely important). Instead we have somehow come to believe that it's all right for legitimate social issues to be resolved one way or the other by nine people in robes who invariably vote based on their own political opinions but pretend that their edicts are just common-sense interpretations of an old dusty document.

One of the first things that should be omitted is the Electoral College. We've had 157 faithless electors throughout the history of the United States.

http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/national-popular-vote/the-electoral-college/problems-with-the-electoral-college/faithless-electors/

We don't even get to vote for the President. Rather, we vote for an elector, that we hope will vote for the president that their state wants. As I said earlier, this institution is really just a cynical invention of the Federalists, that didn't really care much for democracy. This was their failsafe, because they thought the average person was too feeble to elect a competent leader.

[GreyGhost]

TheCupboard said:

election cycle funded with public dollars

We made that mistake years ago, with a funding model that's based on the percentage of the vote your party (individuals are ineligible for funding) received at the last election. As expected, the major parties grab almost all of the taxpayer funds. Add that to what they've raised from other sources and they can easily out-spend any small party or independent who has the temerity to challenge them, apart from crackpots like Clive Palmer. I think there used to be spending limits on election campaigns and wouldn't mind if they were re-introduced.

[Gez]

the_miano said:

The Articles of Confederation was the original constitution of the US. It's purpose was to give individual states rights instead of having a strong Federal Government overpower them. These sovereign states would be like individual countries. I often wonder if the US would have been better off without the Federal System. Just a thought.

You're in luck! You can solve this thought experiment by looking at the European Union! What's happening with the eurozone right now gives you a good idea of just how functional and successful a non-federal system would have been.