Why a 1789 guide for a 2003 nation?
Why not? Age of any guide is no reason to discount it. Hell, the Ten Commandments are older than the U.S. Constitution and they're still 100% on the mark. But if you want to ignore religion, then there's the Hippocratic Oath. That's a guide that's quite old and still as relevant as the day it was first written.
almost 100 Iraqi defenders killed to every one American
Since when did bodycounts give a side any claim to moral high ground? With that sort of ridiculous logic, one can easily paint the Nazis as the "victims" in World War II since more of their soldiers died than did ours!
Despite strong evidence to the contrary, many Americans believe that their government -- under a Constitution adopted in 1789 -- is the perfect system, "the most democratic country in the world." But self-delusion is not patriotism.
Hint: the U.S. is the most perfect system in the world. Sure, it's not perfect...but what government on Earth can honestly claim it is?
In reality, our system is not all it's cracked up to be.
This is usually when the Useful Idiots start praising some Socialist "Democracy" (in which the State is ultimate parent) as the ideal.
Consider our most recent war, in which a rigorous debate in the British House of Commons before the war was matched by a nonexistent debate here.
Ummm...hello! There was loads of debate about the coming war. It was carried out in Congress, on the streets, in City Councils across our nation. And y'know what? The majority (86%) of Americans supported the war. So the minority (a mere 14%) was rightfully ignored.
Or compare our representatives' fawning obsequiousness during our annual State of the Union address with the catcalls and real debate in the House of Commons when the prime minister stands to answer questions.
Catcalls == debate in this guy's mind? He's more screwed up than I originally presumed.
In almost any meaningful index of quality of life, we lag far behind other Western democracies.
Then perhaps the author can explain why the U.S. is the ultimate destination of immigrants across the world? I can't wait to hear that one...
And it should come as no surprise that, according to a study by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United States "ranks 139th in the world in average voter turnout in national elections since 1945."
And I presume this august "Institute" praises the likes of Saddam Hussein for his "100% voter turnout" under his regime?
Look, there's no cure for voter apathy...especially when it's the product of learned helplessness that the Left wing likes to engender in its Victim Class.
This widespread voter apathy is in reality an index of citizen frustration and alienation from a political system that just doesn't work.
That's one opinion. I doubt the author has any evidence to back it up.
Regardless of what most Americans believe, our Constitution has not been a model for the rest of the democratic world.
Which explains why every other free nation has a Constitution that closely resembles our own.
In fact, as Yale University professor Robert A. Dahl has written in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, "It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it." Largely because, as Dahl makes clear, our governmental system "is among the most opaque, complex, confusing and difficult to understand."
Okay, first off...we're not a Democracy. We're a Republic. Secondly, if the validity of a government is based solely on its simplicity, then it is inevitable that the author of this piece champions no other form of government than a tyrannical, totalitarian regime. A government just doesn't get any more clear, simple and straightforward than that.
Our Constitution is the oldest constitution in the Western world, and it's beginning to show its age.
I wonder what this joker has to say about the Bible's teachings as well. Are those guidelines for morality also "showing their age"?
Consider the past 10 years: legislative gridlock and impeachment during one administration and then the (s)election of another president under questionable circumstances -- and all of the above clearly the fault of our 18th-century Constitution.
The author is still obviously steamed about Gore's loss in 2000. As for the Impeachment, am I to believe that's the fault of our Constitution? Last I saw, none of that would have been necessary if our President at the time had been an non-philandering honest man. And on the issue of gridlock, how about we talk about the current Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees, hmmmmmmmmm?
Government in America doesn't work, Lazare points out, because it's not supposed to work. In their infinite wisdom, the Founders created a deliberately unresponsive system.
Nevermind all that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" crap! Just do things the Leftist Way and All Will Be Well! (gag...retch...puke)
Modern democracies don't impeach.
No...modern Presidents don't commit impeachable offenses.
As for our last presidential election, regardless of whom you were for, it revealed clearly that we are not a modern democracy.
On the contrary, it showed our Republic is working just fine, thankyouverymuch. The only ones who think it's broken are the Sore Losers.
Modern democracies do not have elections that remain in doubt for weeks
That's not a reflection of our government; it's a reflection on our legal system that allows anyone not happy with reality to hire an expensive trial lawyer to try to force everyone to believe a lie.
using ballots that are difficult to read
Ballots that were designed and approved by Democrats! (Heaven forbid we point out that inconvenient fact.)
while at the same time allowing some votes to count more than others because of an arcane method of tabulating votes adopted because of a political compromise more than 200 years ago.
I wouldn't mind seeing the Electoral College thrown out in favor of direct elections. I for one am tired of seeing my vote thrown away because all of California's electoral votes go to the idiot Democrats.
In modern democracies, the first-place vote-getter wins. Period.
That's all well and good...but tell me, do those "modern democracies" allow criminals and illegal aliens to vote? Last I saw, the Democrats were bending over backwards to make that possible. Fortunately, our "backward democracy" makes it harder for such things to throw our elections.
The fact is that our Constitution is not even particularly democratic. Consider the U.S. Senate, the least representative governing body in the Western world.
Excuse me, but the whole POINT of the Senate was to allow each State in the Union an EQUAL VOICE in the Legislative Branch! Jesus H. Christ, will someone sponsor this guy's taking a few courses in U.S. Government??
We have put up with the patented absurdities of an unrepresentative Senate and the Electoral College for far too long. A constitution is only a plan of government. There is nothing sacred about it.
Which explains why the Left is always running around trying to gut the Constitution, starting with the Second Amendment!
The legitimacy of the constitution, Dahl points out, ought to derive solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic government -- nothing more, nothing less.
It also happens to be the one document that limits government and spells out the rights of the People. If that's not a sacred document, then nothing is sacred.
At the very least, before we attempt to export democracy to the cradle of civilization, we should begin talking about the real deficiencies in our Constitution.
Any deficiencies -- real or imagined -- can be readily addressed. All you need to do is AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. This can be done via our Republic. If you don't like our system of government, I suggest you try to change the system via the system or move to a nation more in line with your socialist ideals.
Excerpts from modern constitutions:
Netherlands
No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
And this is better than our First Amendment...how? Does the author mean to claim that our press or our citizens have to get "prior permission" to publish their thoughts and opinions?? What a load of bull----.
Adopted in 1983 A full 207 years after our "backward" Constitution. But we're the ones "behind the times"?? Give me a freaking break.
The citizens shall without previous permission be entitled to assemble unarmed. The police shall be entitled to be present at public meetings. Open-air meetings may be prohibited when it is feared that they may constitute a danger to the public peace.
Hint to the idiot author: the armed are citizens, the unarmed are subjects. And the part which reads, "the police shall be entitled" shows what a tyrannical joke that government truly is. Especially when it puts its own fears into its "constitution."
And this jackass admires those "constitutions." Just shows what a joke he is...and what a joke his critique of the U.S. Constitution is.
-Jay