America, so far, is exceptional in that it still exists after nearly 250 years and public attention,

Do your homework.
Suffice it to say à changé of republic is not a revolution.
Or course it meant à changé in THE constitution. Otherwise there wouldn't have been à constitution to change.
The fundamental ow the first constitution remains intact. Since time changes it is necessary to change with it. You may do well yo remember that when you talk about your own constitution.

 

Very well stated.

 

You are gliding right over the significant and fundamental difference. That is the independence of the three branches of government in the US as opposed to the dependence elsewhere. Our founders and framers viewed that as critically important in the viability of a constitutional republic. In the US the legislature (congress) has virtually no control over the execution of the executive branch, other than the executive branch has to obey the laws that only congress can write. On the other hand if the executive does not obey the law, or if the president does things congress doesn't like there is not a damn thing they can do about, as opposed to say UK where parliament just kicks his ass out any time or for any reason they feel like it. Of course this, like anything else in governance, is always subject to interpretation and individuals in fact following the laws and the constitution. There is one way where congress can remove the president from office, called impeachment, but that is a very prescribed process and for definite extreme egregious reasons. (Of course this too is subject to interpretation and enforcement as has been witnessed twice in the past four years when congress just blew the impeachment prescription out of the water and nobody could do squat about it.) None the less it is very difficult to infringe on another branch of government in the US. Congress cannot remove a president or other high official on a whim, congress and the president cannot remove a justice on a whim, the president cannot pass and make laws on a whim (though he has to approve or can veto laws congress passes as a check). These are all examples of fundamental and critical difference with our government and Constitution; it ain't semantics.

 

Sigh
Once again.
European democracies have their three branches of govt.
There are many ways to unseat à national leader.
It doesn't have to be your way.
The result is the same.
Yours is no better and no worse than anyone else's.
And in no nation can law be made on a whim
What à ridiculous notion. That denied their democracies.

 

I can think of no reason stemming from changing times that would justify amending a well constructed and written Constitution. To the best of my knowledge no amendments to our Constitution have been adopted because of changing times. AFAIK the only constitutions that change to keep up with the times are only those that 1) are easily changed, and 2) have people in position to easily make changes who see prescripts in the constitution they don't want to follow. These are call malleable, not durable, constitutions

 

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how misled.
Would you please learn about other countries instead of only being able to discuss your own if you want to claim superior exceptionalism.
You have changed your Constitution 27 times. Far more often than the ones I am familiar with. Would you call that stable?

 

BUT THEY ARE NOT INDEPENDENT -- the key and fundamental difference. Our three independent branches of government were deliberated designed by our prescient and intelligent founders and framers as a very significant and important inhibition to a government going down the natural path to authoritarianism and tyranny.

 

Unless you are a racist today, being an American has nothing to do with innate characteristics. As for the stability of of our Constitutional Liberal Democracy, name another major nation that has a government that was established before ours that has not fallen to either foreign foes or internal revolution.

 

YES THEY ARE.
In fact Orban in Hungary tried to mess with it's judiciay and was told to leave it independent or be thrown out of the EU.
Would you PLEASE do some research!!

 

Err..you had a revolution. You call it the civil war.

 

It was amended to fix fundamental flaws (well except once, prohibition, which was done on a fleeting whim) or to clarify certain fundamental precepts, other than the first ten which were committed to at the behest of all the states' ratification conventions and was the first order of business of the first congress. No amendment was made because of "changing times."

Maybe I could be more cogent comparing our Constitution with say UK if the UK actually had a written constitution.

 

Indeed, and the result is tremendous stability. If you take the average age of the governments of the Anglosphere of which you are certainly a proud member, I think it stacks up very well against any other language group. Through a long period of trial and a multitude of errors we have managed to end up with a system that works very well for us, and I think that most intelligent would date the point at which we established the foundation on which it is constructed, at the Magna Carta.

When The People began to push back against the divine right of kings.

​

 

Errr... The Union prevailed. By the way, have you ever answered why you asked if Supreme Court Justice Thomas wears a bulletproof vest?

 

It is written. Just not as a singular document.
It is contained in Hansard, legal precedent and various historical documents. Again Boris Johnson tried to override it in 2017 and was taken to the UK suprême court by à private lawyer. And told to conform to the Constitutional law.
I seriously don't care why constitutions change. Your charge was that change means instability.
Look to your own.

 

In the preamble We The People describe a process of ever perfecting the mutual securing of our fundamental rights and liberties. This is an ever present task that we receive from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery and women's suffrage amendments should have been present from the beginning.

But rather than sit in judgment on those that went before us, perhaps we should be sitting in judgment of ourselves. Are there basic rights being horribly violated, today, that we could be addressing rather than sitting in judgment of those in the past, who did far more to advance the cause of Liberty than we ever have?

How about the folks in our prisons, who are raped daily while the government controls every minute of their lives, including the physical space they occupy?

Should we sit in judgment of our great great great grandparents who benefited from slavery or should we be willing to pay a little more for our smart phones rather than paying less for the slave produced ones that China supplies?

I say we press forward and focus on remediating our own shortcomings, right now, right here, today. And pass a more just nation to our children than we received from our parents.

 

It was a sarcastic remark in context.
BTW I was told he did.
No matter who prevailed. It was your révolution.

 

Sarcastic of what? The context was the attempted murder of another Justice by a transgender who intended to murder 3 constitutionalist Justices. And we all know EXACTLY what your remark meant, and it wasn't well-considered.

What was prevented was Succession, not falling to revolution, and the Union forces prevailed over the secessionist forces, are you unaware of who won the Civil war? It would be illogical to try to continue this discussion with you if you're this uninformed.

 

I merely challenged your assertion that you never had a revolution.
You did.
I doesn't matter who won it. Part of the US wanted to rebel against the then government. It was a particular form of revolution that failed. That doesnt make it less of à revolution.
I am not going to rerun à remark made in context months ago . I don't know why it bother you. SC justices must have upset people who carry guns. So what? Even John Lennon should have worn one.

 

Fake news, I made no such claim.

Exactly, it failed to bring down the government.

So, name another major nation in existence today with a government that started before ours, that hasn't fallen to either foreign forces or revolution.

 

You have just repeated your mistake even though you changed the wording. You said "fallen to internal révolution".
The south would réfute your claim.
As for foreign forces, you make damned sure all your "excursions" are played out in someone else's country even if you start it.

 

My original splendid claim that laughs at Pixie's lame attempts to disprove it.

You are still desperately flailing. We have never fallen to revolution.

The South is quite aware that their effort failed.

We also made damn sure that Britain didn't fall to the Nazi's. You're welcome. I'm confident that the broad base of sensible Brits do not share your lack of gratitude.

But wasn't Trump something? No new wars under the Great Orange One!

 

So the South never was part of the US.
OK.
you can stop the constantly disgrace idea that only you helped your allies against fascism.
When you finally turned up nearly three years late you were partnered by Australians, Ghurkas, and most of all the Russians.
This is a facile argument you have crafted as part of your national fairytale. And à desperate one at that.

Look. You like every other country have things to be proud of. But for heavens saké stop making things up according to some prewritten myth. And pretending you are spécial without knowing what happened elsewhere and how they operate now.
It is pure jingoism based on national propaganda.
And I would say the same to any other national of any other country who bent history so out of shape .
Be proud of the truth. You don't need fantasy.

 

BTW in geopolitical terms the USA and Western Europe plus other geographical outliers like Canada Japan the Phillipines and Taïwan are à global alliance united in guarding human rights and specifically among them, personal liberty, against à far larger number of countries and populations who are TRUE enemies of these values.
That you sit there making arguments about who is supérior for your chosen reasons is both pathetic and misguided.
I don't know why some feel the need to antagonise your allies. I don't know why they can't think past their own borders and begin to appreciate their friends.
Currently you and all other western democracies are severely challenged by two powerful countries who would happily destroy OUR ( yours and my)liberties. And I still don't know why your House Speaker decided to poke one of them. But that is another thread.
But more, I don't know why you throw réd meat to your allies. You don't have to compete or reach for 75 year old glory at the expense of the other . I don't understand why you CONSTANTLY look for confrontation.
Why you keep having to swagger in the face of others who ride in your troop. Are you so insecure? Can you only see differences and not similarités?
Is this how you think of allies while some even in this happy band support Putin?
Who on earth cares about the best way to get rid of à leader or whose Constitution is more "perfect" than someone else's when tens of thousands of refugees are bombed out of their homes by Putin and are being housed in families all over Europe? Perhaps you might like to fly some of them into the USA and help us out?? Nah you would rather debate constitutional angels on the head of à pin and let us inferiors get on with it.
Get real. Get involved in what is happening outside your borders and start to prioritise what matters.

 

You're a large isolated country. Not easy to take. I'm sure when Australia is as old as your sstablished government it will still not be taken.

I'm guessing your convenient definition of 'fallen' to internal revolution means they didn't keep the same Constitution before and after?

 

The slave thing is far more nuanced than history teaches, but it started before. There was an evolution toward slavery that began with servitude and then the taxing of black women servants in some of the colonies (but not the men) in the 1600's prior to slavery becoming more institutionally legal. Slavery (and much of american history) is rooted in richer people wanting to avoid taxes.