An interesting read... the study cited in the article determines that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now the benchmark...

For sure... like a fifth of whiskey is the benchmark for an alcoholic or a kilo of coke for a drug addict.

 I personally don't give a rats arse what any other country thinks, including yours!

I think it's time we mind our damn business and get our own affairs in order!

By the way... your article is incorrect...we're a Republic NOT a Democracy...  there so many ignorant imbeciles that still don't get it!

The link doesn't work, so I'm not able to read and interpret.

What browser are you using, RT? It works with Chrome and Explorer on mine...

Your posted link, didn't work (can't click on it, since it's not highlighted), and when I tried to type it in on Firefox, it didn't come up with anything.

Weird...

The Declining Influence of the US Constitution | Common Dreams

More BS from the foreign side that needs the US to fail.

This article was written after one of our own told a country not to use our constitution in drafting theirs .And that was a VERY LIBERAL in congress .Go figure .So it is the liberal socialists that don't agree with our constitution .
edit

And it stops those kind from trying to control us .

RT4, what program are you running? I'm using Windows 7. With Windows 7, when I run across a link like this one I can open it by highlighting it as though I was going to copy it. When I right click on it I have an "open link" option. I'm also using Firefox.

YH. is your Charter going to be replaced/rewritten in 19 years?

I can't answer that, LD- but you gotta admit, that was pretty cool that TJ said that, and now most countries seem to be doing it every 19 years on average....

Holly-
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a liberal Congresswoman? I'm afraid your credibility may be slightly in question, here...

Copphead-
Pretty sure the author of the article, as well as the two law professors cited are all American...

YH, I don't know that the letter cited in the article exists. I'm not saying it doesn't, but just reading about it in an article isn't good enough for me. Also, I'd like too see the total content of the letter (if it does in fact exist), not just a quip from it. I have a book about TJ that I'll be reading soon, maybe I'll find the content of that letter in it

I believe that it's a good thing that our constitution can not be easily changed. That way it can't be easily influenced at the whim of the powers that be at any given time.

Hell, lunker, I didn't know I could do that with windows 7, thanks for the info.

And just for info, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a very liberal Supreme Court Justice who happens to also be slightly insane!

Now, after reading the article, I tend to believe that as our nation turns more left, it's the liberals who would like to change the Constitution. For example, just look at the current situation regarding the Second Amendment and the views of the left towards it's intent and definition. I'm certain that many countries around the world DON"T want to use our Constitution as a template, simply because of the freedoms enumerated within it and it's Bill of Rights. Also, considering that under the Constitution the United States was founded as a Republic and not a Democracy, there tends to be quite a bit of confusion as to just how to differentiate and define just what it means for a centralized government to be theoretically limited by the individual states. It is an established fact that all governments, including our own, want to consolidate power within the Federal system while curtailing the rights of the states and as other emerging countries see how our Government has managed to erode the rights of the states and circumvent the Constitution, it's only natural that they would look to another form of government and rules for it's operation.

Maybe the canadian needs to come back in about 250 years after their Constitution(or whatever it's called) has ran the biggest and baddest SuperPower known to exist for as many years as our Constitution has? Just saying.........Our founding fathers sure had it on the ball when they drew up our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I salute them and this great country of ours with which has been governed by our Constitution all these years. Maybe if our liberal canadian neighbors worried more about their country and not ours they would not be so controlled by the liberal gun control fanatics and have to pay $20 or so for a siz pack or a pack of cigarettes. LOL

How can we expect others (with respect to our Consittution) to see the greatness in it when our leader and his minions want to change it to fit their dreams of social re-enginering?

Fivepoints--I told him something similar a while ago...as far as worrying about his country instead of ours...I don't think it took. LOL.

RT-
I believe your Constitution is a much more state-empowering document than our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I've said before- I have read your Constitution, and the beauty of it, to me, is in it's simplicity... it definitely decentralizes power. The thing is, even with this simple elegance, it still needs to be updated- times change, and the Constitution needs to reflect these changes.

5P-
Once you're done saluting, come on back. BTW- taxing alcohol and cigarettes is what is known as a sumptuary, or "sin" tax. I don't pay either, as I neither drink or smoke (any more). I put in my share, though- the casinos are heavily taxed, and every rake pays that tax. Win or lose, I pay it.

flat-
Well, maybe it's time to re-engineer it. The Constitution is a living document- maybe it needs a breath of fresh air.

Duck-
Nope. Didn't take.

Ahhh yes, let's just change our Constitution because YH thinks it is a good idea. Brilliant!

Yes. Because THAT'S the point I was trying to make.

So YH, since your obviously well versed in our constitution, what changes would you suggest we make?

For the record, it sounds to me that you are probably better versed in our constitution than I, I'll try to remedy that, I have to admit it's a bit embarrassing.

That said, as I go about my task I would be interested in what you have to say. Though as I said, at this point I'm not in favor of making it easier to change.

That's entirely up to you guys... but, personally, I'd start off by ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment. That's a gimme... you can't really hold yourselves up as bastions of freedom if women don't have the same consideration from government that men do.
Any other changes would need to be made through a public consultative process. It needs to, naturally, be totally transparent. Your existing Constitution is a beautiful document, and needs to form the basis for your next one. The Bill of Rights needs to be expanded, IMHO. The Second Amendment should probably be updated- not removed. I like the Blaine Amendment, to keep the separation of Church and State. A balanced budget amendment, while fantastic in theory, is probably not a realistic option. Personally, I'd abolish the electoral college- he who garners the most votes wins.
While there is, in fact, a process to amend the current Constitution, it's brutally onerous.
A quick quote from the article I posted earlier...

Americans should wake up, stop their delusional thinking and recognize that the US Constitution needs to be updated through reform amendments. We the people must pressure Congress to convene the first Article V convention. Otherwise the Supreme Court will continue to make interpretations that are more political than legal in nature and the federal government will continue to erode personal freedoms and liberties. And more and more other democracies will operate under better constitutions.

Minus serving in infantry units in our military, women have the same rights men do.

Why should we update the Second Amendment? So we can't have military STYLE firearms? Civilians have had military style firearms ever since the Constitution was drafted. Think about it. Our military had muskets during the American Revolution, civilians had muskets. Get into the Civil War and you see repeating rifles and lever actions; civilians had these same firearms. WWI saw bolt actions; guess what? Here comes the same style of rifle for civilian use. WWII; the M1 Garand--a semi-automatic that paved the way for civilian semi-auto rifles. Now our military has the M16 and M4. So, why can't we have a rifle similar to it in our AR-15's?

If we start updating our Constitution, the government will then start making Amendments and/or revisions that puts it in more control of our lives than it already has.

But their rights are not guaranteed in your Constitution...
Being the good Union man that I am, I am a HUGE supporter of Majority Rules... even if I don't personally agree with it. Doesn't matter. When it comes to your Second Amendment, ask the American people for their opinion.
As for the amendments giving the government more control... I suppose that depends on the amendments.

I would posit this question. If the Ultra Conservative religious right were to come to power, and our Constitution had been changed as YH has suggested, what type of Amendments or changes could be expected? I have no doubt that the liberals, both extreme left and left of center, would then be up in arms over any attempts at those changes. That's the true beauty of the stodginess of our Constitution.......the fact that it is a long and drawn out process involved in making changes. This eliminates any one particular political climate from instilling a one sided set of rules for the country. Right now, we are being faced with an ultra left wing liberalism movement, and for those of us who are moderately to strong Conservatives must depend on that difficulty of change to preserve the freedoms we have always had. Change has to be considered a two headed monster that is only controlled by whichever party is in power, which is exactly why our Constitution exists in it's present form.

"Ultra left wing liberalism"?
Pffft....

Regardless of the extremes of either side, I believe you have to agree with the overall validity of the situational analysis.

Busy right now, just popped in to see what is going on. Yh I think your artical is slightly out of context.

RT-
Yes and no. I don't believe that amending your Constitution should be a century-long process. Times change. I do agree, however, that no one political party should have the right (or the audacity) to change it to meet their agenda.
ck-
How so?

You are talking about Jefffersons philosophy of Usufruct, and his feelings on government and Intergenerational Issues. Should one man have the right to despose of land as he sees fit, depriving the next generation, of its top soil, fruits. Or leave dept for the next generation. Yes he did beleave the Constitution should be changed to meet the needs of the living generation, but he was refering to the Governmet and how it ran. And he would have issue with both sides Democrat and Republican, now. Our National dept would really pizz him off.

But the bill of rights was a list if you will of Inalienable rights . Inalienable rights are rights, things, that could not belong to any other man, but to each his own. The right to life , Liberty, secure in his own body, freedom. And Jefferson believed in that as well, and as far as gun rights go, he beleaved every man should be requiered to own a gun, to protect his Inalienable rights. So if you are attempting to say the Constitutions 2nd Amendment should be changed or abolished, base on Jeffersons Usufruct Philosophy, I would say yes it is out of context, in that reguard.

Totally NOT what I was saying. I merely pointed out that TJ felt that the average life span of a Constitution was 19 years.

Our biggest problem is that our constitution allows to many from other countries that come here ,and are not assimilating like people use to .They keep trying to change our way of life .Look at the Islamic s coming here .Yes they are trying to impose Sharia law on us ,and to be used in our courts .They don't wish to live under our laws that are well established here .

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/ameri...t_id=87651

Liberal Progressives would like to get rid of that restrictive thing, plus you get to watch Megyn Kelly

YH you asked what one change that I will say should be changed .Not anybody born here is a citizen ,to at least one parent must be a citizen .That would get rid of all those anchor babies .They are just as illegal as their parents .

Posted By holly on 05 Jan 2013 12:27 PM
Our biggest problem is that our constitution allows to many from other countries that come here ,and are not assimilating like people use to .They keep trying to change our way of life .Look at the Islamic s coming here .Yes they are trying to impose Sharia law on us ,and to be used in our courts .They don't wish to live under our laws that are well established here .

I'm afraid that's pretty much the story of America, Holly... otherwise, you'd all be living in teepees, and following Native Tribal laws.

I am native American so .

YH, that was the story of a fledgling America as it expanded and grew. New immigrants were needed to help the country achieve the growth and build the economy. That isn't the case today. We have no need for immigrants to come to this country, and we receive no benefits from immigrants. We now have a reversal of the basics, in that the immigrants need the country and the financial benefits they can receive from coming here. Yes, America used to be a melting pot; but that term in and of itself describes exactly how all of those different nationalities and societies "melted" into being Americans. That ceased to be the case, with the commonality of hyphenated distinctions such as African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Asian-Americans, and now Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans. The melting pot has dissolved into a splintered America and that is destroying everything that all of those years of welcoming immigrants tried to build. I often wonder what this country would have been, if the Native Americans had managed to hold off the "white hordes", and had been able to save their culture and beliefs instead of being forced to abandon them and adopt the "white man's" laws and religions. Perhaps, if we eliminate the current immigration policies and the changes being pushed for by this new class of immigrant, we can retain some vestiges of what our actual heritage used to be, and the country can once again be viewed as the results of having been a "melting pot" that has accomplished it's goals and achieved the maximum heights it was designed to reach. I fail to see how all of the hyphenated classifications will ever allow us to become one united citizenry as we once were. The golden age of America as a nation of Americans ended sometime in the 60's and 70's and if immigration is allowed to continue, we will continue our descent into a disjointed American society without a common identity.

Posted By YH on 07 Jan 2013 05:58 AM

Posted By holly on 05 Jan 2013 12:27 PM
Our biggest problem is that our constitution allows to many from other countries that come here ,and are not assimilating like people use to .They keep trying to change our way of life .Look at the Islamic s coming here .Yes they are trying to impose Sharia law on us ,and to be used in our courts .They don't wish to live under our laws that are well established here .

I'm afraid that's pretty much the story of America, Holly... otherwise, you'd all be living in teepees, and following Native Tribal laws.

I would like to know .Are you a native of Canada ,or a French invader .

I was born and raised in Canada. My father was also born and raised here. My mother was born in Detroit, then improved.

At least you got the part about your mother, correct! Any one who get's the hell out of Detroit is going to make a major improvement, even if they only go to Chicago!!!!!!!

I was just asking a simple question and you talked around it .Is your ansestery from Canada or from some other country .That's all I am asking .

holly, if his ancestors didn't come from another country, then they would be Native Indian........which from several studies indicate they actually migrated across the Bering Land Bridge from either China or what is now Russia.

Now RT, that may not be true. Science has proven, they think, that the Clovis people, who they believe were here before the Aliuts, migrated from Europe, across the Atlanitic, dureing the ice age----Durn, another earthquake just hit us!! That makes my hinney pucker! Any how, science believes the Clovis people, hunting seals, followed the ice across the Atlantic!

Best click over to NOOA, check the tsunamui warnin's
Allen

And we were here as natives before the invaders .I was just wondering if YH was .Never got a strait answer .We did find out his mother had some sense and got out .

Holly-
You asked:
"I would like to know .Are you a native of Canada ,or a French invader . "
I answered that I was born and raised here. I'm not just sure what it is you can't comprehend about that answer. If you wanted to know what my ancestry was, you should have asked. I'm of Scottish decent.
It does bring up one question, though- when did the French invade us? I must have missed that in history class...

I guess if one were a member of the Native People Tribes, the French settlers and explorers, along with the English, were in a way, invaders; much as the Vikings, the Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, English and French were in all of North and South America!

Cajuns (pron.: /ˈkeɪdʒən/; French: les Cadiens or les Acadiens, [le kadjɛ̃, lez‿akadjɛ̃]) are an ethnic group mainly living in the U.S. state of Louisiana, consisting of the descendants of Acadian exiles (French-speakers from Acadia in what are now the Canadian Maritimes). Today, the Cajuns make up a significant portion of south Louisiana's population, and have exerted an enormous impact on the state's culture.[1]

While Lower Louisiana had been settled by French colonists since the late 18th century, the Cajuns trace their roots to the influx of Acadian settlers after the Great Expulsion from their homeland during the French and Indian War (1754 to 1763). The Acadia region to which modern Cajuns trace their origin consisted largely of what are now New Brunswick and the other Maritime provinces, plus parts of eastern Quebec and northern Maine. Since their establishment in Louisiana the Cajuns have developed their own dialect, Cajun French, and developed a vibrant culture including folkways, music, and cuisine.
 
Canada, New France

Canada, New France, was the historic homeland of the French Canadian people, the St. Lawrence River valley, in the time of New France. It corresponds to the southern part of modern Quebec excluding the Eastern Townships. Later, it was renamed the Province of Quebec (1763), Lower Canada(1791), Canada East (1840), and finally the Province of Quebec (1867) again.

French is the mother tongue of about seven million Canadians (22.3% of the Canadian population, second to English at 58.4%).^[1] Most native French speakers in Canada live in Quebec, where French is the majority and sole official language. About 80% of Quebec's population are native francophones, and 95% of the population speak French as their first or second language. Additionally, about one million native francophones live in other provinces, forming a sizable minority in New Brunswick, which is officially a bilingual province, where about one third of the population are francophone. There are also fairly large French-speaking communities in Manitoba and Ontario, where francophones make up about five percent of the population, as well as significantly smaller communities in Alberta, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. Many, but not all of these communities are supported by French-language institutions

By the Official Languages Act in 1969, Canada recognized English and French as having equal status in the government of Canada. While French, with no specification as to dialect or variety, has the status of one of Canada's two official languages at the federal government level, English is the native language of the majority of Canadians. The federal government provides services and operates in both languages. French is the sole official languagein Quebec at the provincial level and is co-official with English in New Brunswick. The provincial governments of Ontario, New Brunswick, and Manitoba are required to provide services in French where justified by the number of francophones (those whose mother tongue is French). However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires all provinces to provide primary and secondary education to their official-language minorities at public expense. The French used in Canada is regulated by the Office Québécois de la Langue Française (OQLF), previously known as the Office de la langue française (OLF).

Well you commented about my being Indian as I would still be living in tee pees if it was not for the invaders .So I was just wondering about whether you were native to Canada .I see you are not .

In my overtly stupid reasoning, An invasion can be defined in more ways than open armed conflict. But it would be where one culture has a large or great influence on another. Lower Canada Quebec, and Canada as a whole is a bilingual country, French being one of those languages.
Now perhaps I should allow my betters, those more adapt at debating such intellectually superior individuals as your self, teach me more about that. No wait that would not be right, as you have stated that would be ganging up on you. Even though you have come to a forum where you know the Majority of the people do not share your opinions.
However I may have misunderstood that because, You are a man who believes in Majority rule and the Majority is always right. Or is that only when the Minority feel they are intellectually superior to the Majority.
We all live on the North American Continent, so US citizens Canadians and Mexicans are all Americans. But American has become a Generic term for US citizen. You as a Canadian have said that the American Constitution is out dated, and should be updated. And It is no longer respected and is loosening influence around the World. Now I would submit it might need a little up dating as it has been on a number of occasions, being the original only had 10 Amendments. You speak of women’s rights. I believe that was addressed in the 19th Amendment. Other Amendments address rights as well, the 13th, 14th and 15th
I also submit it may not be our Constitution that is not respected, or has lost its influence it had on the world. But perhaps the, at sometimes corrupt American influence around the World that is no longer respected. You say Americans meddle in other counties affairs where we have no business. Yet as Canadian you have no problem coming to an American Forum where you know your opinions are not shard with the Majority, and call us overtly, or rampantly stupid, and ignorant. Then become defensive and insulting when the Majority questions you.
You launch person attacks on the Intelligence Honor and Integrity, of any one who opposes or challenges you. If/ when questioned about your intentions, you attempt to turn that around/into or show where that is a personal attack on you. And I will admit there is a fine line between a person attack and the questioning of ones intentions, but there is a difference. And both are relevant in a debate, used to prove or discredit the person or opinion. Time and observations, can help to determine which it is, and for what reasons, the intent.
The intent maybe to distract from the facts, partial or other wise, and/or by casting the person, not the facts themselves in a bad light, there by avoiding the facts. Or to question the intent of the person who maybe avoiding, omitting or distorting the facts for reason(s) known or unknown. I try to remain respectful of ones person while trying to determine their intent, my candor can at times be misunderstood, but I try to never be malicious in my intent.
So again I will ask you, who has admitted to being a Socialist. Why in my opinion as well as others I believe, and who are in the majority of this forum, are you maligning, attempting to discredit, cast doubt and dispersions on our Constitution. With what would seem to be an attempt to cause its change, or abolishment of our inalienable rights it protects.
We are a country of immigrates, and Our Constitution has protected the rights, and culture of many who have immigrated here, it is not perfect, and does require some assimilation into the American culture, which is and of its self a multicultural, culture. There are those who come here now, who do not wish to become a part of that, but want our culture to change into what they wish, even though they are the minority. What is your intent by saying on one hand the Majority should rule, and on the other saying we should change our culture, and beliefs for the minority. Change our Constitution because they, you or other countries in the world do not like it.