The US is distinct in that its written constitution is extremely old by comparison with most other democracies (the last British monarch to intervene politically died in 1901; the hereditary peerage were stripped of legislative veto in 1911. The current French constitution dates from 1957.) The US constitution comprises Lockian phiilosophical principles grafted on to the prejudices of the eighteenth century English gentry, and obviously doesn’t directly address many 21st century concerns except insofar as it’s been amended.

In the late 20th century a broad international consensus emerged as to what a liberal democratic society should look like, but that consensus was based on the experience of two world wars, Fascism, Communism and the great depression. It had nothing to do with constitutional principles. So different countries tried to express that consensus by different means. Some (the US, Britain, Scandinavia) explored wiggle room in their respective constitutions or traditions; others (France, Ireland, Germany) substantially re-wrote their constitutions. All were basically responding to recent history within the constraints of longer history, which is why they look so similar in practice while so different on paper.

The process continues. The current operation of the French 5th republic is considerably removed from de Gaulle’s vision just half a century ago. the lesson? Nobody was ever really bound by constiutional principles unless they really wanted to be.

This has been interesting and don’t take me wrong on the following, but there sure are a lot of dudes in this thread. I know this site has female readers. Any of them – preferably many of them – care to offer opinions?

Can’t speak for the other women who read here, but I learned (oh so) long ago that debating definitions of rape with a lot of dudes was, well, a waste of time and a mug’s game. Meh.

I think Tolkien is probably a special case. He’s different from later Fantasy fiction in that his was sort of a trend-starter. Once the nerdy readers found they liked him, later writers tried to ape him (in some cases almost exactly) in order to get a part of his audience. What may have been accidental for him was intentional on the part of authors that followed him.

ajay:

You may be right about SF to an extent – a lot of SF heroes may not be outcasts. I was never as much an SF reader as a fantasy and comic book reader. (Though there certainly are some books where it happens – Stranger in a Strange Land. And of course all of Larry Niven’s characters are at least engineers, which may not make them outcasts in his universe, but certainly makes them nerds in ours.)

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/exptyp.cfm

I once saw him attribute Larry Summers’ dismissal from Harvard on “anti-Jew animus among the Harvard faculty.”

I recall that in the early 90s, when countries like Estonia and Bulgaria were shopping for government systems, the State Dept. crafted a package for implementing constitutions in the American style. All potential customers said Thanks but No Thanks and settled on parliamentary systems.

The Constitutionally-correct way to “reform” the Senate would be to form more states, not amend Art. V. California and Texas ought to be six or eight states apiece at least.

even though the question has no practical application to the United States.

Article V of the Constitution says that the one provision that is not amendable is the one that says each state is entitled to be represented by two Senators.

I’ve always wondered if this Article 5 provision could be basically bypassed with an amendment that left the representation of the Senate intact, but effectively stripped it of all power. I’m thinking of an amendment that would basically turn the Senate into the House of Lords. Yes it’s still there but they can’t do much of anything. Maybe they could stall a bill of a month or two but that’s it. This would avoid the problem that Article V presents in terms of equal representation for states. I’m not a lawyer or constitutional scholar so I don’ know how you’d word it.

We need IOZ to do this full justice, I think.

To be honest, the nerd (intelligent, quiet, socially awkward) stereotype for someone who likes reading pretty much anything dates back a long, long way. It’s barely even a stereotype: dumb loud sociable types, by definition, tend not to spend their time reading books!

I stand by the assertion that SF doesn’t have lots of outcast protagonists. Dickens does. Dickens loves his social outcasts. But SF? That’s John Carter of Mars, Paul Atreides, Captain Kirk!

I’m pretty sure that carriages had drivers. Maybe in your day, old timer, they just had darn smart hosses.

In a nutshell, all the evil is right there:

“the privileges of the First Amendment”?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You gotta love the principles of accountability among these jackasses. So, apparently, Peretz misspells NY’s five “boroughs” as “bureaus,” this is pointed out by the first commenter on the story and the second commenter goes on to blame Peretz’s mistake on the NYT, because they apparently have a hatred for everyone outside Manhattan! Not that the Times actually misspelled the word, but they have a general hatred of the other four boroughs, so that must explain Peretz’s entirely independent mistake.

Now, I despise the Times too, but I generally limit my criticisms of that long-standing imperialist propaganda rag to stuff that they actually, you know, do.

Is it now fair game for me to criticize them for the mistakes of my own political confederates?? Sweet! All anarchist actions that turn off the country in and of themselves I hereby declare the fault of the NYT.

…and Marty Peretz.

If it could be made clear to the general populace the role that Peretz has had in goading us into these unnecessary wars and if it were true that free speech was a privilege and not a right, is there any doubt that the majority would vote to have Peretz shut the hell up?

I view free speech as a right, which leaves me free to say, “Hey, Marty, fuck you!!”