Why worship a constitution?

[Geoff]

Sure, I can see the point regarding purely local considerations, but State laws seem to differ in aspects that I don't see are affected by local factors.

Like?

The way the US is set up, the States make laws of general applicability within their borders. State laws involve criminal law, taxing/spending, environmental/conservation, business regulation, etc. The federal government makes laws of national applicability that are within its Constitutional authority.

I don't know a huge amount about your laws, admittedly, but to take just one example, why do the age of consent laws vary from state to state?

I would surmises that it's the same reason that the age of consent varies throughout Europe, and may be different in France or Austria or Greece. The people there think differently about the issue.

I really don't see how children in, say, Nevada, grow up faster than those next door in California.

I don't see how children in, say, Germany (14), grow up faster than those in Poland (15), Netherlands (16) or Belgium (16).

The US is a federation of States.

Yeah, but those are different countries, with different governments.

Fair enough, though...I wasn't "merkin bashing" (for once ), just genuinely puzzled.

I think it's the dichotomy between what's legislated at state or federal level that confuses me. To give other examples, as I understand it, abortion is a federal matter, whereas capital punishment isn't. I don't see why.

It just seems odd, to me.

[Pappa]

I think it's the dichotomy between what's legislated at state or federal level that confuses me. To give other examples, as I understand it, abortion is a federal matter, whereas capital punishment isn't. I don't see why.

It just seems odd, to me.

Some things are at State and Federal level, but Federal trumps State... as in California's medical marijuana laws.

[Geoff]

I think it's the dichotomy between what's legislated at state or federal level that confuses me. To give other examples, as I understand it, abortion is a federal matter, whereas capital punishment isn't. I don't see why.

It just seems odd, to me.

Some things are at State and Federal level, but Federal trumps State... as in California's medical marijuana laws.

Yeah, I understand that - it's how they decide which things come under federal jurisdiction and which under state laws that confuzzles me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, but those are different countries, with different governments.

The different colonies in the US were different countries, and they only agreed to join together to form a federal government for limited purposes. Otherwise, they remained in control of their own affairs.

Fair enough, though...I wasn't "merkin bashing" (for once ), just genuinely puzzled.

I think it's the dichotomy between what's legislated at state or federal level that confuses me. To give other examples, as I understand it, abortion is a federal matter, whereas capital punishment isn't. I don't see why.

Abortion is only a federal matter insofar as the complete prohibition of abortion constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. State laws, however, are the ones that regulate abortion. For example, the law at issue in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court Opinion that found that women have a Constitutional right to abortion, was a State law, not a federal law. States may still make laws on the subject, but they are severely restricted because they have to comply with the Constitutional limitations outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade or they won't be enforceable.

[mistermack]

Surely the difference between British "laws" and the US constitution is what has already been stated.
You need a very high percentage vote to change the US constitution. And there is real reluctance to get involved because things are "enshrined" in the constitution.

British laws just need a simple parliamentary majority to be passed, or altered.
We really don't have a constitution in that sense.

Maybe we do in practice, as there are things that nobody would dare impose, on the justification of a slender majority in the commons. And there are things that the Lords would never pass, or the monarch would never sign.
You could argue that we have an unwritten constitution, existing in the common values of those in power.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it's the dichotomy between what's legislated at state or federal level that confuses me. To give other examples, as I understand it, abortion is a federal matter, whereas capital punishment isn't. I don't see why.

It just seems odd, to me.

Some things are at State and Federal level, but Federal trumps State... as in California's medical marijuana laws.

Yeah, I understand that - it's how they decide which things come under federal jurisdiction and which under state laws that confuzzles me.

States: States have general police powers and general jurisdiction to legislate on any matter, within their own charters (State Constitutions). States are generally NOT controlled by the federal Constitution, EXCEPT that States may not deprive individuals of fundamental liberties/rights except as punishment for a crime with due process of law, or except where some such deprivation is required because of a compelling State interest (and there are no other less intrusive means of accomplishing the same goal) - that exception came about as an interpretation of what is known as the 14th Amendment. Now, the long and short of it is that States may make any law they want (as long as they get a majority vote of the legislature), but they can't take away free speech/expression, they can't establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of it, they can't impose cruel and unusual punishments, make laws allowing unreasonable searches and seizures, deprive people of the right to privacy (abortion, contraceptives, sexual privacy, etc.), the whole ball of wax.

Federal Government: The Federal legislature is of "limited powers" which means that it only has those powers delegated to it under the US Constitution. You can find those delegated powers in Article I, section 8, of the US Constitution. EVERY single law passed by the US Congress must be founded upon something in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Sometimes the connection is very tenuous, and there have even been certain powers that have been found to be "implied" to the federal government, but there has to be some arguable connection. The item in Article I, Section 8 that backs up most legislation these days is what is called the "Interstate Commerce Clause" - that grants Congress the power to make laws regulating interstate commerce among the several states, and between the US and other nations. Things like the US Drug Enforcement Act and the Food and Drug Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act setting minimum wages and overtime regulations, etc. are based on the interstate commerce clause.

Now, the States also can regulate drugs, and food, and wages/hours/working conditions, etc., they can't frustrate the federal scheme on things - that's covered by the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution, which says that the federal laws are the supreme law of the land, and if there is a conflict, they beat out State laws (that is, as long as the Congress is within its grant of authority in the first place.

So, that's the basic gist of it. State power to legislate is broader than the federal, and in most areas where the feds can act, the states are also free to act. However, if the feds HAVE acted, the States can't frustrate federal law.

[Geoff]

So, that's the basic gist of it. State power to legislate is broader than the federal, and in most areas where the feds can act, the states are also free to act. However, if the feds HAVE acted, the States can't frustrate federal law.

Cheers, that clears things up a lot!

I guess I didn't really get how much autonomy the individual states have...people (or at least me) tend to think of the USA as much more of a single country than it actually is, perhaps.

[Svartalf]

Because deep down we know there are vastly more ways to fuck things up than improve them.

Also, we don't trust our politicians to not make a horrible mess of things.

You should, if a politician touches it, odd are 100 to 1 it will end up as a horrid mess, and many people who shouldn't will take advantage of it to make money and/or wield influence.

[Svartalf]

It's the American Bible - couldn't run a fundamentalist state without one.

The Free world has laws to say what you can't do. The US only alllows it's people to do what they have permission for. sad.

Depends. Are you a tight or a loose interpretationist?

tight, nobody want it to be loose when buggering anything, and you should know Santa better than this.

[Coito ergo sum]

Surely the difference between British "laws" and the US constitution is what has already been stated.
You need a very high percentage vote to change the US constitution. And there is real reluctance to get involved because things are "enshrined" in the constitution.

Yes, but comparatively few things are constitutional matters in the US. We don't have labor laws and things in the Constitution. We have only things like free speech, freedom of religion, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishments, Equal Protection, etc., "enshrined"in the Constitution. So, we can change most things by majority vote of the legislature. However, to say that freedom of speech and equal protection of the laws ought to be open to a majority vote would be to allow a political party that manages to take solid control over the government to simply vote to deprive their opponents of freedom of speech and equal protection of the laws, and even the right to vote in elections. That's the kind of stuff that would require an overwhelming level of support to change.

Things like the size and structure of the Supreme Court, for example, and the structure of the entire federal court system, are not Constitutional things. We have to have a Supreme Court, but beyond that the Constitution is silent. The Congress sets by majority vote how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court, how many lower courts of appeals there are, if any, and how many federal district courts there are, etc.

The size and number of the legislature (Congress) is set by constitution, as are the qualifications to run for office (age is really the only qualification), but other than that, all procedures and committees and all the rulemaking processes within that general framework is up to majority vote.

British laws just need a simple parliamentary majority to be passed, or altered.
We really don't have a constitution in that sense.

That doesn't seem to be a good thing. I would prefer that my right to hold and express a political opinion, worship or not worship a god, and that type of thing, ought to be beyond the majority vote. Do I want the Congress to be able to vote, by simple majority, that the Church of England is now the official Church of the United States and public funds will support it? Not me.

[Svartalf]

Even funnier is when people respond to comments on the US Constitution with "Well, it was founded on our Magna Carta, you know."

LOL... The British Constitution is far better - by comparison the American one is cheap and watered down.

Yep - ours is unwritten.

Indeed. The EU occasionally tries to foist some sort of European constitution on us, and it gets dumped every time.

Obviously, you were watching somewhere else while they were shoving the lisboa treaty down our collective throats.
that thing was essentially the same as the "constitution" that got turned down.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, that's the basic gist of it. State power to legislate is broader than the federal, and in most areas where the feds can act, the states are also free to act. However, if the feds HAVE acted, the States can't frustrate federal law.

Cheers, that clears things up a lot!

I guess I didn't really get how much autonomy the individual states have...people (or at least me) tend to think of the USA as much more of a single country than it actually is, perhaps.

Each State has a Governor (who is the chief executive - the President of the State), and the Governor runs executive departments like an attorney general's office, a department of labor, department of state, department of the environment, education department, etc. the whole ball of wax. The States also have their own Congresses - State Senates and Houses of Representatives, and they make laws of general applicability. All police forces are State police forces (and local/municipal police). There is no such thing as a United States police force. We have the FBI and the DEA, but they are only charged with investigating certain crimes and things that cross state borders and international borders.

If a State broke away from the US, other than not having a military, and perhaps being financially linked to the federal government, it would have no legal or structural reason why it couldn't go on functioning as it had.

[Geoff]

Even funnier is when people respond to comments on the US Constitution with "Well, it was founded on our Magna Carta, you know."

LOL... The British Constitution is far better - by comparison the American one is cheap and watered down.

Yep - ours is unwritten.

Indeed. The EU occasionally tries to foist some sort of European constitution on us, and it gets dumped every time.

Obviously, you were watching somewhere else while they were shoving the lisboa treaty down our collective throats.
that thing was essentially the same as the "constitution" that got turned down.

Unlike France, the UK opted out of the important bits (as did Poland, IIRC).

[MrJonno]

Its not a simply majority to pass a law in the UK, its at least 3 votes in the House of Commons and a similar amount in the House of Lords. Its extremely time consuming with plenty of time for review but in the end of the day after review the House of Commons which is the elected chamber can pass anything (which is what it should be)

[Pappa]

Its not a simply majority to pass a law in the UK, its at least 3 votes in the House of Commons and a similar amount in the House of Lords. Its extremely time consuming with plenty of time for review but in the end of the day after review the House of Commons which is the elected chamber can pass anything (which is what it should be)

There are some obvious potential problems with a 2/3 majority too. What if only 60% consistently voted to abolish slavery? We'd still have slavery.