Interesting comments from all. As an aside, I'd like to point out that
in the schools I attended, we (Americans that is) were always taught
that our government and our liberties were seeded with the signing of
the Magna Carta. Our laws are based on English law and in the early
days much of our population would have prefered to remain loyal to the
crown. In many ways, we are not very far removed from our friends in
the UK.
On Nov 2, 2004, at 9:44 PM, frank theriault wrote:
First, I said:
As well, the feeling of those who "designed" the US (the Founding
Fathers?) was that they had a rare chance to start with a clean
slate.
Then Bob retorted:
Not so rare, really. In England we did it in (at least) 1215, 1649 and
1688/9. These were revolutions which restricted the power of the
monarchy and led to the supremacy of Parliament through the drafting
of revolutionary laws. In France they did it in 1789. In 1848 it
happened throughout Europe. In 1989 it happened again. Since the 1960s
the former colonies have gained their independence, and had the
opportunity
to start from scratch (although they were severely hamperred by Cold
War
politics from actually achieving what they should have been able to),
but South Africa has a chance that most of the other African countries
didn't get.
--
Cheers,
My name is Bob, and I approved this message.
I feel that matching wits with you, Bob, is much like using a
peashooter to shoot down a B-52; a somewhat one-sided affair. <vbg>
BUT (here goes - gulp!), what I was trying to say, is that the
~framers~ of the US Constitution ~thought~ that they were engaging in
a bold new social experiment. At least, IIRC (and please don't anyone
ask me to point to specifics), that's what they expressed in their
commentaries and correspondence WRT said Constitution. They thought
they were starting with a clean slate, unencumbered by the shackles of
history. And, in a way, they were. They didn't have to wrest power
away from the monarch: They already had it. They beat the monarch in
a war, had a (pretty much) new land, and got to make up a whole new
written constitution which empowered a new type of government.
That's not at all the same as the gradual constitutional reform in
England that started with the Magna Carta in 1215 (is that right? I
think so...) and continues to this very day.
This wasn't reform. This was brand new. Pick and choose from some
old but still good ideas, make up a bunch more new stuff.
Whether they really were starting with a Tabula Rasa is most certainly
arguable; my point was merely that ~they~ thought (or expressed that
they thought) that was what they were doing.
And, now my brain hurts. That's what I get for involving myself in
such threads.
<vbg>
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
