The Old Grey Lady joins President Obama in their collective sadness that the US Constitution is such a restraining force against the power of almighty government.
The Constitution has seen better days.
Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.
In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”
A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.
The entire thrust of the article is that our Constitution is old, and therefore dated, and that America risks becoming a “legal backwater” as long as we keep it in force. Left unsaid is the role that the Constitution plays in keeping us relatively free. We don’t have courts prosecuting us for things we say, as Canada and the UK have. Their “sexier” bodies of law offer little protection for a right we take for granted as protected in our Constitution, the freedom of speech.
The Times story even compares our Constitution to obsolete computer operating systems.
The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.
In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.
And a nation’s body of law is just a bit weightier than computer operating systems that have to adjust to new technologies and new uses for the computers that run them.
This disrespect for the US Constitution has become fashionable on the left, as a means to assault the very things that make America America. President Obama doesn’t approve of its “negative” approach to rights or its omission of redistributing wealth. Tom Friedman would junk it, just for a day, so we could become more like China and use force to undertake projects that the majority of our people don’t want and know that we can’t pay for. This attitude trickles down from the leaders to the progressives’ online shock troops like Ezra Klein, who objects to the Constitution because it’s “confusing” and was “written 100 years ago.” Deep, Ezra, very deep.
The most disturbing part of the Times’ article:
In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.
If that truly reflects her attitude, Ginsburg ought to be removed from the court. She’s not fit to interpret the law she clearly holds in contempt. That she said this in an interview in Egypt, a nation that we might want to encourage to look our way rather than allow the Muslim Brotherhood to write its poisonous views into Egyptian law, is disgusting.
The real reason that the Times, and Obama and Friedman and Ginsburg and the rest resent the Constitution is that it doesn’t let them do unto us all the things they want to do unto us, against our will. Which, actually, was the framers’ purpose in writing it, and remains the entire point of keeping the Constitution right where it is.
IF the Constitution is too old, then what about the 10 Commandments? Thou shall not kill – who needs that, times have changed. Thou shall not steal? The liberals sure don’t follow that anymore. Thou shall not covet? We know how Obama feels about that one.
Ginsburg isn’t the only one. Kennedy also said we should incorporate other countries’ laws into our jurisprudence. Add to that the fact that neither Sotomayor nor Kagan have any use for, and are baffled by, the whole notion of natural rights, and you have four out of nine justices that don’t belong there, much less on any federal bench. I also understand that when she was Dean of Harvard Law, Kagan eliminated a Constitutional Law requirement for graduation.
This is why people who cite the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence), and insist on adherence to the document and its processes, are looked upon as radicals. And we are “radicals,” because our notions are so out of fashion with most of the American power structure and institutions. We are strangers in our own country in this regard.
Why not? Germany´s Constituional Court allowed the cross in the classroom. And rejected abortion without restrictions. Also has rejected confiscatory taxes
All I can say it thank God for the Constitution. It’s still protecting us from the likes of King Zero and the NYT, at least as long as we’re willing to stand up for it. I wish the repubs had the balls to impeach this imposter.
I don’t know what is more troubling, the views of current Supreme Court Justices and major political figures on the inadequacies of our Constitution, or the twisted way leftists subverted the Constitution through faulty interpretations in the last century (especially the never ending elasticity of the interstate commerce clause).
We need a strong effort to counter these current trends, but also to highlight and reverse unconstitutional actions of the past. This years ruling on the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate will be an important bellwhether. The replacement of Obama will be another before he has a chance to replace some of the older Justices.
These are not “current trends” actually, although it seems that way. A century ago progressive luminaries such as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt criticized the Constitution for its “inconvenineces” and “inadequacies.”
What we’re seeing is the Second Coming of the Progressive Movement. What is different now is that the amendment process is no longer used to alter the Constitution.
Y’know, when I was back there in kindergarten they taught me that 2 + 2 = 4, but I’ve been getting kind of tired of that recently.
They praise the canadian constituion for the righ of detained people to hear their rights. So they dont know that the canadian bill of rights, the same that allow imprisonment for using freedom of speech, copied it from the Miranda ruling
Chavez ´s constitution art 49 copied like almost every constitution south of the border , the exclusionary rule from the SCOTUS rulings.
Roe vs Wade was made into law in many countries. Germany rejected it by the way.
The European Court has ruled following the outlier american constitution that the crucifix is forbiddeng in the classroom( In Germany, the Christ is forbiden, not the cross)but has been ignored by goverments.
Christian Faure, one leading historian in France, showed in her book ” the declarations of rights” that the Virginian Bill of rights is the origin of the french one.Jellinek in his Declaration of the right of man showed the american origin of the french declaration.
And the rcognition of social rights is based on the New Deal.
They say something unintelligible about speedy trail. well, in every constituion in Latinamerica the american provisons has been copied. In Italy, judge Falcone rejected those measures introduced in Italy in 1990, because they were to hard to comply.
BTW: why not imitate the german constituion’ It recognized the rights of corporations like SCOTUS did in Sullivan vs the NYT and Citizens United( and rejected in the latter case only, go figure, by the NYT)
My friend:
You are not fully clued into the context of this thread or the intent of the post we’re responding to.
You are citing modern, distorted interpretations of .S. “Constitutional” law, not the actual American Constitution. Therein lies the problem today. These European decisions were not made in “imitation” of the U.S. Constitution, but as a matter of secular, “humanistic” and “progressive” ideology that European elites have in common with their American brethren. Do you understand now? The Actual American Constitution would not have abided by the rulings you mentioned above.
The give-away in this “article” was the bit about how odd it is that Americans are permitted to exercise their natural right of self defense.
The tyrants are straining at the chain, and do not like to see their prey is capable of resistance.
The President, Vice President and nearly half of the Supreme Court don’t believe in upholding the Constitution.
The President, Vice President and over half of the Senate does not believe in upholding the duties of their respective offices. They do not wish to produce a budget which we can see and have scored for us.
The Department of Justice and the Attorney General do not believe in upholding the voting laws, enforcing laws in a race neutral fashion or in swearing an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The media does not believe in any of the above, certainly not in telling the truth or defending the rights of all Americans.
What is the proper term for this? Anomie? Conspiracy to overthrow our system of government without the consent of the people? Rebellion? Treason?
It is the work of small c communism in action. It hides in every nook and cranny of America at the moment.
While we throw spitballs at each other and fiddle while our home burns.
Imagine that! A computer operating system written over 200 years ago (by “programmers” who had never dreamed of one) that remains the finest ever crafted by man and which will remain relevant–assuming it is not discarded for a buggy Windows 7, i.e. flavor-of-the-month.
Bammie, Ruth Bader, Nanzi, Harry, Eric, et al, might have gleaned a lesson or two but for their brazen narcissism and so-called intelligence.
When either the New York Times or Ms. Ginsburg manage to create an egalitarian republic, made up of people descended from all the races of the world, that has lasted more than 200 years, with the original framework still essentially intact (and with the one civil war that occurred not only *not* resulting in essential changes to the heart of that framework, but with the reintegration (after the war) of the separatists having proceeded basically peacefully under that largely original framework, and according to it)–well, if they can do all that, then I’ll be more interested in their opinions on what is best to ensure long-term liberty. Not until then.
Only a Progressive liberal takes the only thing that in the last two hundred years, on a world-wide comparison basis–against all comers–has actually succeeded beyond all doubts in both securing liberty and expanding it for the people that live under it–well, only a Progressive liberal takes the one thing that has been proven to work century in and century out and says it is inferior. The EU may not even make it into its second decade, and yet somehow it is the model of excellence.
The basic problem we have here is that Progressive Liberals think whatever failings America has had are the worst that could have happened. They aren’t, and history proves that time and time again. Both Ginseburg and the New York Times may wish to speculate on why America has not had the experiences all too common throughout history. Until then, I will continue to look on them as I would the Sorcerer’s Apprentice when he tried to use the Master’s broomstick to make his own immediate life easier—as one having absolutely no idea how the magic works, having no idea of what can be unleashed if it isn’t done right, and having no idea of how to get out of trouble once in it.
As an addendum, here is one reason why I always think Progressive Liberals must truly be insane when they think that concentrating on the entitlements/guarantees rather than form of the structure is the way to go when making constitutions:
They somehow think people will be restrained by their words on paper and intended spirit when other people’s words on paper and intended spirits somehow never restrained them.
Wasn’t Ginsburg the one who said she understood Roe v Wade to be a decision in favor of eugenics?
Other commenters have already made the case for the Constitution.
Your point, Bryan, is well taken. The fact that Ginsburg spoke in Egypt, of all places and at this particular moment in time, and recommended other constitutions as preferred models is unconscionable.
Perhaps Ms. Ginsburg should relocate and help the Egyptians craft a suitable constitution. I understand Americans are being offered special living accommodations, courtesy of Egypt.
cant… help… myself…
ruth bader… egypt… mummies… arrrghghggh
“In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution…”
Ginsburg is an absolute idiot. South Africa is one of the most screwed up countries on earth. It’s totally lawless, has one of the worst violent crime rates of any country, unemployment is around 25%, life expectancy has actually dropped thanks to the government’s complete inability to deal with the AIDS crisis. Despite the state’s strong focus on wealth redistribution, income inequality is among the highest in the world, and that’s a big problem when your per capita GDP is less than 25% of a well off country like the United States (amazing that we’re doing so well, given our obviously inferior mode of government, well inferior according to Ruthy).
Basically, there isn’t one good thing about the place, so why would anyone want to copy what they’re doing?
Oh, I know. It’s because they have virtual one party rule, with the ANC and the South African Communist Party in a permanent coalition and in permanent control of the government, and one party rule by communists has a lot of appeal to folks like Ginsburg.
I’ve seen the South African Constitution, btw, and it’s completely worthless…just like the country itself. It doesn’t guarantee a single right, they’re all subject to limitation based on whatever the government thinks is “reasonable and justifiable” per section 36 of their Bill of Rights.
The ANC, when they’re not busy cobbling together constitutions, also has a long history of using murder and political terror to get what they want, which also ought to have appeal to admirers of our Democrat Party (Ruth is, of course, a Clinton appointee).
And, the author is right. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a disgrace to America and a disgrace to the SCOTUS, and ought to be booted out of the job she’s manifestly unfit to hold, and then she ought to be deported to a socialist hellhole, like South Africa, where she belongs. Because, if we don’t get rid of people like her, then one of these days we’ll be South Africa.
As for the NYT, it’s the paper that made Walter Duranty the world’s foremost communist propagandist. Enough said.
“Perhaps Ms. Ginsburg should relocate and help the Egyptians craft a suitable constitution.”
I don’t think they’re too keen on having Jews there. And with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge, they ain’t likely to get keener.
In 1920 there were around 80,000 Jews in Egypt, now it’s thought to be less than a hundred. They might solicit Ginsburg’s advice (the fact that she doesn’t think much of America ought to be a good selling point to the brotherhood), but I suspect they’d do it from afar.
Dave, we weren’t thinking ‘voluntary’. We were thinking ‘pushed out of a plane at some altitude, parachute optional’.
Yep, Dave, that was part of the point. Ginsburg is American, female, Jewish and a represe.
Our Constitution is not perfect, but it’s withstood the test of time. She, like Obama, is more a citizen of the world than a citizen of the US. That’s a dangerous thing.
Regarding Name Withheld: I was thinking along less violent lines, since the Constitution protects her right to speak, however delusional and destructive she might be.
Oops. … and a representative of the US government.
The ‘new study’ referenced only notes comparative associations between elements of the US constitution and elements of other, more recently drafted “constitutions”.
The study notes that “The global turn away from the American model is a relatively recent development that postdates the Cold War.” And – get this — “…the U.S. Constitution contains relatively few of the rights that have become popular in recent decades…” ! OMG – rights are subject to a popularity vote ?!? Who knew ??
So, the NYT scribe decides that because the “..analysis… confirms, however, that the U.S. Constitution is increasingly far from the global mainstream.” well, that must be a bad thing.
The study doesn’t consider the merits of what the various constitutions contain — it only looks at deviations from the current fashion. Great fodder for reporters with an agenda…