Not that that would change much.

DSW

I have seen arguments (with evidence) that the way states are structured (eg presidency vs parliament) affects how they turn out (on average), but I’ve never seen an argument (again with evidence) along the lines that the form of a constitution (eg long vs short) as opposed to what it says (and far more so, as opposed to the prior political history) have any effect on much of anything.

To the extent that the EU consitution is something that needs to be sold, it makes sense (if you support the idea of a closer EU) to create something that is easily sold. But beyond that, who really cares about the details? Europe will evolve as the US evolved; through the exigencies of history informed by the political culture. In the US the constitution is mostly whatever the people with the most power at any given time want it to be—- look at the most recent medical marijuana supreme court ruling.

That is, if you consider Alabama to be a “competitor” of the EU. One would assume the EU aspires to be more like the US than like Alabama.

Maynard, I agree with you on this, insofar as it’s inaccurate to consider the EU Constitution as sui generis. On the other hand, I think you’d agree that what was called for at this moment, in this particular context, was something radically different—something more like what RJW refers to, a clear statement of rights, values, founding principles.

There may be nothing particularly “wrong” with the constitution…but I’m still astounded by the political ineptitude of those who expected voters to sign off on it.

Then there is the infamous Alabama constitution:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm

Go look at it; It’s pretty enlightening—- it reads like the entire freaking legal code for the state.

The fact is that the EU constitution doesn’t seem that out of place compared to the competitors. The US constitution is a model of brevity, but it also seems an exception, something that, thrown into today’s world and without the expectation of shared values that existed when it was put together, might not work as well as it has.

People expect a constitution to be a clear statement of rights, values, or something similar.

Then you look at the EU document itself – and it is long , technical, and difficult to interpret – which is disturbing.

In reality it is a Treaty. And they would have been better off caliing it that to begin with. The old mistake was made – promising more than could be delivered.

In short: get a clue. And a brain, while you’re at it.

OKay, that “Granny D” woman from NH was supposedly arrested for ‘for calmly reciting the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Capitol building’; obviously it was a publicity stunt on her part, but she did manage to get arrested.

This is not the reason why they shouln’t have sent it out, it’s the reason why they should have ditched it in the first place. The very first test a Constitution must pass is that it comprehensible to the people it governs.

soru