"...the notion that the Constitution is a document of salvation...is pure fantasy."

[NotGivingUp]

Although imperfect, no country anywhere is closer to a model democracy than Venezuela under President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. In contrast, none is a more shameless failure than America, but it was true long before the age of George W. Bush. The difference under his regime is that the mask is off revealing a repressive state masquerading as a democratic republic. This article compares the constitutional laws of each country and how they're implemented. The result shows world's apart differences between these two nominally democratic states - one that's real, impressive and improving and the other that's mostly pretense and under George Bush lawless, corrupted, in tatters, and morally depraved.

US Constitutional Law from the Beginning

Before they're old enough to understand its meaning, young US children are taught to "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands," and, by inference, its bedrock supreme constitutional law of the land. At that early age, they likely haven't yet heard of it, but soon will with plenty of misinformation about a document far less glorious than it's made out to be.

This article draws on Ferdinand Lundberg's powerfully important 1980 book, "Cracks in the Constitution," that's every bit as relevant today as then. In it, he deconstructs the nation's foundational legal document, separating myth from reality about what he called "the great totempole of American society." He analyzed it, piece by piece, revealing its intentionally crafted flaws. It's not at all the "Rock of Ages" it's cracked up to be, but students at all levels don't learn that in classrooms from teachers going along with the deception or who simply don't know the truth about their subject matter.

The Constitution falls far short of a "masterpiece of political architecture," but it's even worse than that. It was the product of very ordinary scheming politicians (not the Mt. Rushmore types they're portrayed as in history books) and their friends crafting the law of the land to serve themselves while leaving out the greater public that was nowhere in sight in 1787 Philadelphia. Unlike the Venezuelan Constitution, discussed below, "The People" were never consulted or even considered, and nothing in the end was put to a vote beyond the state legislative bodies that had to ratify it. In contrast to popular myth, the framers crafted a Constitution that didn't constrain or fetter the federal government nor did they create a government of limited powers.


http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/08/22/p19017

We the people have been taken for a ride. It's time to get off.

[Solon]

1. I agree, ultimately, with this analysis, however, one thing I like about the Constitution is that...

it can be amended over time. It started as a Document to justify an oligarchical form of government, and now we have a semblance of a Democratic form of government. Its not perfect, by any means, some things are missing from it, namely an explicit right to vote, and the ERA, other additions can be made in time.

[northzax]

2. yes, rather than a decent set of checks and balances

that has thrived through crises for 200 years, it is much better to have instant democracy, with a strong man leader granted virtually unlimited power through popularity.

would you still like the Venezuelan Constitution and presidential powers if there was a rightist in power?

[NotGivingUp]

4. I think i'm safe in saying you did not read the article..we have no checks & balances as shown here:

"Contrary to popular myth, the new government wasn't constrained by constitutional checks and balances of the three branches created within it. In fact, then and since, sitting governments have acted expediently, with or without popular approval, and within or outside the law. In this respect, our system functions no differently than most others operating as we do. It's accomplished through "the narrowest possible interpretations of the Constitution," but it's free to go "further afield under broader or fanciful official interpretations." History records many examples under noted Presidents like Lincoln, T. and F. Roosevelt and Wilson along with less distinguished ones like Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, GHW Bush and his bad seed son, the worst ever of a bad lot.

Key to understanding the American system is that "government is completely autonomous, detached, (and) in a realm of its own" with its "main interest (being) economic (for the privileged) at all times." Constitutional shackles and constraining barriers are pure fantasy. Regardless of law, custom or anything else, sitting US governments have always been freelancing and able to operate as they please. They've also consistently been unresponsive to the public interest, uncaring and disinterested in the will and needs of the majority, and generally able to get around or remake the law to suit their purpose. George W. Bush is only the latest and most extreme example of a tradition begun under Washington, who when elected unanimously (by virtual coronation) was one of the two richest men in the country."

[northzax]

6. no, I had the misfortune of reading it

this may, in fact, be the single worst piece of constitutional analysis by an adult I have ever read. Seriously, this is claptrap. Did the writers of the US Constitution know that in 115 years the vote would be extended to all citizens, at least in legal theory? of course not. Did they write a document adaptable to make that possible? yup. did they anticipate having a multi-religion country? nope, but they wrote a document that enabled that. Did they anticipate an economic, cultural and military superpower, whose population was majority urban? nope, but they enabled it. did they anticipate a woman from the Spanish colony of San Francisco becoming Speaker of the House? nope. but it worked. Did they anticipate a civil war over slavery and economic issues? well some of them did probably, and they wrote a document that after thaty civil war needed ONE change. It's a document that allowed change to happen slowly, sometimes too slowly, sometimes not slowly enough. it's a document that has allowed the country to survive, and thrive, over time, despite having some absurdly incompetant leaders as well as some absurdly competant but willfully misguided ones. Is it perfect? of course not. but it's worth noting that in 220 years, it has needed to be amended a whopping 28 times, ten of which were adopted at the start as a compromise. The Venezuelan constitution, only seven years old, is already being amended, and that is a much longer and more complicated document.

Look, anyone who told you the US is a democracy was lying to you. the US is a constitutional republic, that has gradually expanded the democractic aspects of the government, sometimes against the will of the people. Giving women the right to vote? not all that popular, would not have survived a referendum. ending racial barriers to voting? also wouldn't have survived. let's put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to a national referendum in 1964 (let alone today) think it would pass? how about the Voting Rights Act? Jim Crow? good luck with that. Think the Civil War would have passed a referendum in the North? or would people have said "eh, ain't worth it, let the south go"

the US and Venezuelan Constititions are completely different documents, coming from completely different theories of government. the Venezuelan Constitution lays out, in detail, what the government (as embodied by the President) SHALL do. It is incredibly detailed, it has 350 articles and 17 temporary concessions. when translated into English (I don't read Spanish) it is 113 pages long. it has 36,000 words. meanwhile, when retrieved from the same source (wikipedia in this case) the US Constitution including amendments, is 16 pages long and contains 4,500 words. the former is a detailed proscription for day to day government, the other is a framework. the former says "thou shalt do" while the latter says "thou shalt not do." the former, despite saying that power comes from the people, says, explicitly what government will do for people, the other, saying the same thing about where power comes from, says what the government won't do to people.

There is little need for laws in Venezuela, the Constitution is so detailed as to be the law in most cases. despite protestations of sovereignty, the Venezuelan Constitution establishes an incredibly powerful state, one invovled in every detail of life (for instance, in order to run a government agency, you have to be of 'good moral character' which, in a predominately Machismo-Catholic state, would, I figure, ban gays and lesbians explicitly, or are there any openly gay or lesbian legislators or government ministers in Venezuela?) Take a look, if you would, at Article 236, expressly laying out the powers of the President. for instance, the President can, by decree, suspend any part of the Constitution, by decree, if he so chooses. (236.7). The President has the right to hire and fire in the military, exclusively for officers, without review (236.6) but then, the President cannot leave the country for more than five days without the permission of the Legislature (that's odd, no? the legislature restricts the travel of the executive?) Check out article 229, you cannot run for President if you hold any executive office, anywhere in the country. you can't be a minister, you can't be a mayor, you can't be a governor. Where are people going to develop experience in government, if they can't work in government? you can, of course, be in the military or the legislature, but you can't be a regional leader or someone who might develop skills and a following outside the national government. What kind of rule is this? take 230, the Presidential term limits rule, the current President has already decided that he wants to try and amend this one. took him 7 years to decide he wants to be President a little longer. all it takes is a referendum, and whammo, he's President for Life. Good plan. think we should have given George Bush this power in 2001, when he had 90% approval ratings?

Meanwhile, the US Constitution simply lays out the formation of the Government, and grants the power for day to day decision making to the people elected though the system created. It grants broad powers to the government, and then restricts them in specific cases to protect individual rights. It is slow to change, for good and for bad. How do you think, for instance, a referendum banning Islam in the US would have done in September 2001? think 51% of people would have voted for it? I do. Thank god that system wasn't in place. how about unlimited surveillance and detention powers of the Executive in the war of 'terror'? that would have passed. banning public criticism of the President during wartime? if you think that wouldn't pass, go read a paper from 2002. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, constitutions should be slow to change. While that creates certain iniquities in the short term that are unfair, it makes a more stable system over time. immediately responsive and representative government is not always a good thing, over time, representative republics have succeeded many more times than populist strongman democracy. It's just the way it seems to work.

a thought experiment, and I am interested in your answer. If you will recall, in October of 2001, George Bush has 92% approval ratings in the US. Given that unfortunate reality, under which Constitution would you rather have him working, the US one or the Venezuelan one? Take into consideration, if you will, the various powers granted to the President under each system.

now another experiment. in an insane Disneyifcation of the world, tomorrow morning, Hugo Chavez and George Bush wake up as eachother. you can't tell the difference, it's a Freaky Friday scenario. no one can tell, so you have a Chavez, with the same charisma and immediate popularity, who starts acting like Bush. Still trust the Venezuelan Constition, with rule by decree and a weak legislature, to keep him in check?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

8. I'm not sure you understand what you are saying here..

"Still trust the Venezuelan Constition, with rule by decree and a weak legislature, to keep him in check?"

Weak legislature?

Keep the president in check?

The legislature in the US is not just weak, they are terrified.

The president has bullied the legislature into doing away with Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus.

The SCOTUS has been stacked with busheviks who decided the 2000 election.

America has an incarceration rate higher than any other country in the world.

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/world.htm#rest

The incarceration rate in America is 701/100,000 in Venezuela it is 76/100,000, just over 10% of the US.

So which one is *really* "the land of the free", eh?

In the last 120 years or so America has invaded and conquered more countries than I can count, Venezuela has invaded no one.

Alcohol Prohibition was brought about by Constitutional Amendment and was done away with only 13 years later also by Constitutional Amendment. Marijuana Prohibition on the other hand has now been going on for 70 years with no Constitutional Amendment required and with an ever expanding list of other drugs being added every year.

I could keep going, but your view of the American government is remarkably naive.

[northzax]

9. so the legislature is 'terrified'

that really seems to be a problem with the people in the legislature, not the system itself. After all, the Republican Congress of the late 90s was neither weak nor terrified, was it? my point is that in Venezuela, the President doesn't need to bully the national assembly into doing any of this, because they can't stop him. He already has those powers.

yes, constititional government requires people invovled in said government to take their responsiblities seriously. For the past 6 years, the US Congress has abdicated that responsibility in many cases. Doesn't mean the system is broken, only the people in it. Congress CAN enforce it's will on the President in most cases, the fact that this Congress is choosing not to reflects poorly on them. every flaw you point out is the fault of the representitives of the people failing, not the system.

Tell me, if Al Gore was President (who, by the way, would not be eligible in Venezuela in 2000) and 'bullied' congress into passing Greenhouse Gas Emissions reductions, or national healthcare, would you feel the same way? If the President issued an executive order legalising marijuana use, removing it from the FDA's Schedule, would you feel the same way? What if the President issued an executive order removing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (which is an Executive Order itself)? so is your problem with the system, or the people in the system?

But let's compare the people in the system. Venezuela has had, what, 26 constitutions in the past 150 years? 26. Every new government rewrites the constitiution to serve their own ends. every government has changed the rules, even after a peaceable transfer of power. There was no need to try and abuse the system, once you took power, you changed the system to what you wanted it to be. Why do you think Chavez feels the need to hold onto power for longer? because he knows that as soon as he leaves office, the next guy, or the one after him, will change all the rules again, and undo everything Chavez has done. That's not a Constitutional government, it's a fad. But if that's what you want. Or would you want George Bush to have the powers Chavez has?

but hey, since you care about Marijuana prohibition so much, let's put it to a national vote. What do you think would happen? (hint: it would lose, the war on drugs is stupid, but it is very popular) in fact, let's put all sorts of stuff to a national vote, English-only, perhaps (pass), increased use of the Death Penalty with limited appeals (pass) affirmative action (fail) indefinate detention of US citizens at the will of the President, without Habeus Corpus in terror cases (pass) enforced prayer in schools (pass) establishment of Christianity as the national religion (pass) posting of the Ten Commandments in every public office, classroom, courtroom (pass) reduction of civil rights for gays and lesbians (pass) criminilization of speech criticizing the President in wartime (pass) banning of desecration of national symbols (pass) abolishment of public sector unions and 'right to work' open shops (pass) you want government by referendum? that's what you get (every single one of those, with the exception of detainees) has passed in a statewide referendum in the US in the past decade. polls show all would pass nationally.

I am not naive about what the US has done, but for the most part, everything has been done with the willing complaince of the People. 70% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, even more supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Democracy doesn't mean good government, only the government that the people elect. the same thing happens in a democratic republic. If you elect bad people, you get bad government, and no amount of constitutional tinkering will change that.

oh, and by the way. think George Bush would have won a national referendum to cancel elections and extend his term in office if he had asked for one on september 12, 2001? I do.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

10. Marijuana prohibition is not as popular as you might think..

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that over half of the electorate thinks the War On Drugs is a waste of money and a fraud. Practically everyone has an an acquaintance or family member that has fallen afoul of the insane drug laws in this country. Certainly here on DU it is very unpopular. Even the freepers don't particularly like it.

As a principled person I wouldn't like it if Gore were to override the legislature in the manner you describe. Perhaps I'm a rare breed.

I note that you did not address my point regarding the difference in incarceration rates between Venezuela and the US. I find that makes the great majority of Americans very uncomfortable and they simply do not wish to discuss it.

I wonder why?

Seventy percent of the population supported the Iraq invasion because they were lied to by both the administration and the mainstream media. If the true facts of the matter had been known by the citizens the support would have been far less.

Part of the problem is that Americans are stunningly ignorant of history and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it as Santayana so insightfully wrote. If you don't know history you have no chance of learning from it.

Even the military has almost no institutional memory. It wasn't all that long ago that the Powell doctrine was the talk of the day in the military and yet they eagerly threw themselves into what any half assed student of military history would have known was a meat grinder of a quagmire. Even Ctheney and Schwartzkopf told us that invading Iraq was a very bad idea.

Yes, Venezuela has been unstable, but it has had nothing remotely resembling the War of Northern Aggression, has it?

[northzax]

11. maybe

but then, find me a politician who has been elected on a platform of ending the War on Drugs. is there a single congressperson, out of 435 who says, publically, that marijuana should be legalized? if it was really a popular issue, then someone would be running on it. Come on, there are people running on platforms that basically say "arrest mexicans" but no one seriously saying "end the drug war" anywhere? Even in a state like Oregon, which legalized medicinal marijuana by referendum, there are no congressional candidates of note saying that it should be legal across the board. That's how popular your idea really is.

I did neglect to address incarceration rates. I should have. you want to know what incarceration rates are so high in the US? because people want them to be. Sorry, but this is the case. Let's look at the marketplace, shall we? what are the top ten rated shows on television, let's take last week:

1: "America's Got Talent," NBC, 13.94 million (reality show)
2: "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," CBS, 10.37 million; (crime show)
3: "Without a Trace," CBS, 9.3 million (crime show)
4: "Two and a Half Men," CBS, 9.25 million; (inane stupid comedy)
5: NFL Exhibition: Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh, NBC, 9.2 million; (sports)
6: "60 Minutes," CBS, 9.05 million; (news)
7: "Singing Bee," NBC, 8.88 million; (reality show)
8: "Power of Ten," CBS, 8.7 million; (game show)
9: "Cold Case," CBS, 8.45 million; (crime show)
10: "Criminal Minds," CBS, 8.3 million. (crime show)

4 out of the top 5 scripted shows on TV last week involved putting people in jail. the top rated cable show? "the Closer" about, you guessed it, putting people in jail. how many years has COPS been on TV? Law and Order? there are 3 CSIs, right? and 3 Law and Orders? we love this shit.

yes, it makes people uncomfortable to think about, perhaps, but find me a single candidate who talks about reforming the prison system. Dennis Kucinich doesn't even talk about this. Take the Death Penalty. many people oppose it, which is why it was eliminated by referendum in states...no wait, it was eliminated by the courts, and reinstated by popular demand state by state. Even Wisconsin, a state that had banned the death penalty in 1851 recently passed a statewide referendum calling for it to be reinstated. 155 years without the Death Penalty, and, when voted on, people asked for it to return. And you think people are concerned about the incarceration rate? we don't believe in rehabilitation or redemption, we believe in punishment. Americans LOVE this stuff. Go to a thread on this board about a child molester and notice the number of liberals clamoring for him to be killed. heck, there are people who actually proposed death for Mike Vick, and he killed DOGS. in the matter of criminal justice, the American people are getting exactly what we want, and what we say we want, over and over again. people on this board clamor for and celebrate the potential rape, in prison, of nonviolent white collar criminals. These are liberals we are talking about. this is our culture. people dislike incarceration as a general principle, but in specific cases? not a chance.

how do you think most Americans would vote on providing public financing for criminal defense attorneys? Heck, most Americans support torturing terror suspects, you think they want to pay for defense attorneys?

and yes, there has not been a full fledged civil war, of course, there have been a whole bunch of coups, right? including an unsuccessful one by the paragon of democracy Hugo Chavez? how many military coups has the US had?

[NotGivingUp]

5. and here:

"In effect, "the President....is virtually a sovereign in his own person." Compared to the power of the President, Congress is mostly "a paper tiger, easily soothed or repulsed." The courts, as well, can be gotten around with a little creative exercise of presidential power, and in the case of George Bush, at times just ignoring their decisions when they disagree with his. As Lundberg put it: "One should never under-estimate the power of the President....nor over-estimate that of the Supreme Court. The supposed system of equitable checks and balances does not exist, in fact, (because Congress and the courts don't effectively use their constitutional authority)....the separation in the Constitution between legislative and the executive is wholly artificial."

Further, it's pure myth that the government is constrained by limited powers. Quite the opposite is true "which at the point of execution (resides in) one man," the President. In addition, "Until the American electorate creates effective political parties (which it never has done), Congress....will always be pretty much under (Presidents') thumb(s)." Under the "American constitutional system (the President) is very much a de facto king," and under George Bush a corrupted, devious, criminal and dangerous one."

[northzax]

7. no, that takes a compliant congress

and a sommnombulent people. George Bush has done nothing that is not explicitly granted to the President of Venezuela in that Constitution. how many times, then, over the past 7 years, has the Venezuelan National Assembly voted to constrain the power of Chavez? how many government ministers have they refused to confirm? how many laws have they passed that he has vetoed? how many times has the budget he submitted been changed? how many executive decrees have been rescinded by the Assembly (as is their right, under the Constitition)?

How many of Chavez's foreign initiatives (treaties, agreements, contracts and loans) have been refused by the National Assembly? (oh, right, the National Assembly doesn't have the right to review those). how many regulations for the application of laws has the Assembly reviewed? (oh right, they don't have that right of review, either) how many extraordinary budget items (basically the supplemental appropriations used in the US) have they reviewed, altered or refused? What was the vote on his Attorney General, the only ministerial office subject to review by the Assembly?

and you think the US system has a strong presidency? the currrent US Congress may choose NOT to review such things, but that's their responsibility, that's the fault of the Congress, not the system as a whole. Look at how well the Republican Congress of the late 90s constrained Bill Clinton's power as President. Just because the current congress is filled with wimps, doesn't mean the system is broken, only that the people in it are.

on edit:

you may like what Chavez is doing with the system created by and for him, that's fine. But the true test of a Constitution is whether you would want someone you are diametrically opposed to having the same power as the person you like. having a pure majority rules system is great, when you are in the majority.

[Rick Myers]

3. One thing I'd love to see added to the document...

No Confidence vote!