Do ancient documents (ie: different nations' Constitutions) have relevance today?

lesmore49 · 07-07-2010, 09:09 PM

In a previous thread I started... many answered that the reason the president had to meet the condition that to be president, one had to be a citizen born in the US, was that it was a requirement that was written into the American Constitution.

It sounds completely reasonable to me, that this is where this condition was spelled out and required.

It has led me to think of another question regarding different country's constitutions, Bills of Rights, etc.

Many of them were written many years ago...some 100's of years ago.

Because of the fact that they were written so long ago, they reflect a world that has changed so much...some may say completely in the ensuing time that has passed.

When they were written they reflected a different world.

Could you say that those who wrote these long ago documents, could of possibly of envisioned the mass of changes that have happened in the world, in the centuries that have passed.

My question is...do ancient documents still have relevance in the present day ?

BTW, I'm not just referring to the American Constitution of the 1770's....but also as another example among many...the English Magna Charta which was written back in 1215 and has provided the foundation, for many bill of rights type documents that have been written since then.

How can an ancient document reflect modern times in a relevant manner ?

Are some truths just naturally, self evident and universal for all time, or is this not the case and therefore Constitutions/ Bills of Rights, should be completely reviewed at set time frames ?

Say every 50 years or so.

Last edited by lesmore49; 07-07-2010 at 09:14 PM.

tybeck · 07-07-2010, 10:20 PM

One thing to consider is that documents such as the US constitution lay a frame work and a set of basic principles. They also allow a mechanism for change. In the case of a constitution or a charter there is usually a provision that the document can be amended allowing it to be changed if need be. Another way that a document adapts is in how it is interpreted. US history is ripe with examples like this. If the basic structure of a founding document is well laid out it should still have relevance in current times.

Nesster · 07-08-2010, 03:25 AM

While technology, life style and relative wealth/education levels may have changed, I'm not sure human nature and the characteristics of our interactions have changed all that much. Therefore as long as these documents talk about human relationships and how to regulate them, they would be applicable now as well as then.

MRRiley · 07-08-2010, 05:01 AM

I agree with Jussi here. The value and relevence in these documents lays in the fact that they largely address basic human issues which are current regardless of the time period.

Not trying to open a can-of-worms, but a perfect example is our 2nd amendment in which the people's right to keep and bear arms is stated. "Arms" is a deliberately open word which allows for advances in technology. It does not say "muskets" or "flintlocks." It says "arms" because. even though the flintlock and musket were state of the art weapons at the time, the founders were wise enough to realize that technology would bring improvements and the development of weapons which they could not conceive in their wildest dreams (and no, I am not arguing for personal ownership of nukes here).

As another example... go back several thousand years to the 10 commandments. Now whether you believe they are 'divine" or not, they basically served as the constitution or founding/governing documents for the early Israelites. And again, whether you are religious or not (I am not) the concepts found in at least the 2nd half (the human relationships laws) are still largely relevant today and are reflected in a great many founding documents (of both religious and secular nature).

Mike

p.s. Please do not hijack the thread off into an argument about firearms... I only used the 2nd amendment as an example. If you want to argue about that, start a new thread!!!

Last edited by MRRiley; 07-08-2010 at 07:21 AM. Reason: added p.s.

GeneV · 07-08-2010, 06:40 AM

The more basic and less detailed the documents are, the more relevant they are today. The U.S. Constitution is general enough that it remains relevant with very few amendments. Since 1791, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times. The interpretation that results from such a document sometimes leads to criticism of judges as making law, but it has kept the document relevant.

On the other hand, many U.S. states have constitutions that are so specific that they are amended almost every year. Texas comes to mind with over 450 amendments since 1876.

wildman · 07-09-2010, 05:28 AM

For me a constitution is a document written by men and for men.

Thus a constitution is ultimately , with respect to it's authority, no different than a camera manual or a telephone book.

It must be judged on it's merits without reference to any authority beyond ordinary human affairs.

Jefferson on the Right to Change a Constitution:

"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Ira · 07-09-2010, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by wildman

Thus a constitution is ultimately ,in authority, no different than a camera manual

Interesting comparison, since most of here haven't read the full manual either.

wildman · 07-09-2010, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Ira

Interesting comparison, since most of here haven't read the full manual either.

What's the similarity between the US Constitution and a Pentax users manual?:

They are both only referred to when it becomes absolutely necessary.

Parallax · 07-09-2010, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by wildman

What's the similarity between the US Constitution and a Pentax users manual?:

They are both only referred to when it becomes absolutely necessary.

And both often ignored, even after being referenced.

Nesster · 07-09-2010, 08:07 AM

The Pentax manual has pictures, and safety warnings, both of which are lacking (and sorely needed

) in the US Constitution...

GeneV · 07-09-2010, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Nesster

The Pentax manual has pictures, and safety warnings, both of which are lacking (and sorely needed

) in the US Constitution...

Pictures would have been nice in the Declaration of Independence, as well. We'd get a true idea of what was meant by "all men" are created equal.

Parallax · 07-09-2010, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Pictures would have been nice in the Declaration of Independence, as well. We'd get a true idea of what was meant by "all men" are created equal.

We could perhaps have gotten some real insight into that "pursuit of happiness" part, too.

Ratmagiclady · 07-09-2010, 01:08 PM

Perceiving "relevance" is a faculty, not a declaration or editing.

(Unless of course, you're still *living* by that declaration, as a social contract, of course. )

FlashCube · 07-09-2010, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

We could perhaps have gotten some real insight into that "pursuit of happiness" part, too.

Go study Ben 'Jamin' Franklin.

Ratmagiclady · 07-10-2010, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Pictures would have been nice in the Declaration of Independence, as well. We'd get a true idea of what was meant by "all men" are created equal.

In the terms of the Enlightenment Deism denied by people who want to rewrite our history as a 'Modern Evangelical Christian Nation,' ...'all men' meant something rather neutral regarding women. To their perspective, it didn't mean 'Deliberately excluding women.' It was just the way things kinda were. 'Men' even, was sometimes considered to be an inclusive term, ie 'a race of men,' etc. 'Mankind' became an inclusive term later.

07-07-2010, 09:09 PM	#1
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,342	Do ancient documents (ie: different nations' Constitutions) have relevance today? In a previous thread I started... many answered that the reason the president had to meet the condition that to be president, one had to be a citizen born in the US, was that it was a requirement that was written into the American Constitution. It sounds completely reasonable to me, that this is where this condition was spelled out and required. It has led me to think of another question regarding different country's constitutions, Bills of Rights, etc. Many of them were written many years ago...some 100's of years ago. Because of the fact that they were written so long ago, they reflect a world that has changed so much...some may say completely in the ensuing time that has passed. When they were written they reflected a different world. Could you say that those who wrote these long ago documents, could of possibly of envisioned the mass of changes that have happened in the world, in the centuries that have passed. My question is...do ancient documents still have relevance in the present day ? BTW, I'm not just referring to the American Constitution of the 1770's....but also as another example among many...the English Magna Charta which was written back in 1215 and has provided the foundation, for many bill of rights type documents that have been written since then. How can an ancient document reflect modern times in a relevant manner ? Are some truths just naturally, self evident and universal for all time, or is this not the case and therefore Constitutions/ Bills of Rights, should be completely reviewed at set time frames ? Say every 50 years or so. Last edited by lesmore49; 07-07-2010 at 09:14 PM.

07-09-2010, 05:28 AM	#6
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	For me a constitution is a document written by men and for men. Thus a constitution is ultimately , with respect to it's authority, no different than a camera manual or a telephone book. It must be judged on it's merits without reference to any authority beyond ordinary human affairs. Jefferson on the Right to Change a Constitution: "We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82 "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41 Last edited by wildman; 07-09-2010 at 07:27 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
photographing documents	Slon	Photographic Technique	23	08-20-2008 08:53 AM
The Nations Capital	fula6	Post Your Photos!	10	08-02-2008 07:23 AM
The United Nations Building Solarized With Photoshop Elements	steve917	Post Your Photos!	4	06-04-2008 06:04 PM
* a Light unto the Nations * - May May 17 - 20	focustnv	Welcomes and Introductions	1	08-14-2007 06:18 PM
Using the Optio W20 to photograph documents	volosong	Pentax Compact Cameras	1	02-28-2007 09:33 AM

07-07-2010, 10:20 PM	#2
tybeck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 452	One thing to consider is that documents such as the US constitution lay a frame work and a set of basic principles. They also allow a mechanism for change. In the case of a constitution or a charter there is usually a provision that the document can be amended allowing it to be changed if need be. Another way that a document adapts is in how it is interpreted. US history is ripe with examples like this. If the basic structure of a founding document is well laid out it should still have relevance in current times.

07-08-2010, 03:25 AM	#3
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	While technology, life style and relative wealth/education levels may have changed, I'm not sure human nature and the characteristics of our interactions have changed all that much. Therefore as long as these documents talk about human relationships and how to regulate them, they would be applicable now as well as then.

07-08-2010, 05:01 AM	#4
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	I agree with Jussi here. The value and relevence in these documents lays in the fact that they largely address basic human issues which are current regardless of the time period. Not trying to open a can-of-worms, but a perfect example is our 2nd amendment in which the people's right to keep and bear arms is stated. "Arms" is a deliberately open word which allows for advances in technology. It does not say "muskets" or "flintlocks." It says "arms" because. even though the flintlock and musket were state of the art weapons at the time, the founders were wise enough to realize that technology would bring improvements and the development of weapons which they could not conceive in their wildest dreams (and no, I am not arguing for personal ownership of nukes here). As another example... go back several thousand years to the 10 commandments. Now whether you believe they are 'divine" or not, they basically served as the constitution or founding/governing documents for the early Israelites. And again, whether you are religious or not (I am not) the concepts found in at least the 2nd half (the human relationships laws) are still largely relevant today and are reflected in a great many founding documents (of both religious and secular nature). Mike p.s. Please do not hijack the thread off into an argument about firearms... I only used the 2nd amendment as an example. If you want to argue about that, start a new thread!!! Last edited by MRRiley; 07-08-2010 at 07:21 AM. Reason: added p.s.

07-08-2010, 06:40 AM	#5
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	The more basic and less detailed the documents are, the more relevant they are today. The U.S. Constitution is general enough that it remains relevant with very few amendments. Since 1791, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times. The interpretation that results from such a document sometimes leads to criticism of judges as making law, but it has kept the document relevant. On the other hand, many U.S. states have constitutions that are so specific that they are amended almost every year. Texas comes to mind with over 450 amendments since 1876.

07-09-2010, 07:19 AM	#7
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by wildman Thus a constitution is ultimately ,in authority, no different than a camera manual Interesting comparison, since most of here haven't read the full manual either.

07-09-2010, 07:34 AM	#8
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by Ira Interesting comparison, since most of here haven't read the full manual either. What's the similarity between the US Constitution and a Pentax users manual?: They are both only referred to when it becomes absolutely necessary.

07-09-2010, 07:54 AM	#9
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by wildman What's the similarity between the US Constitution and a Pentax users manual?: They are both only referred to when it becomes absolutely necessary. And both often ignored, even after being referenced.

07-09-2010, 08:07 AM	#10
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	The Pentax manual has pictures, and safety warnings, both of which are lacking (and sorely needed ) in the US Constitution...

07-09-2010, 08:45 AM	#11
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Nesster The Pentax manual has pictures, and safety warnings, both of which are lacking (and sorely needed ) in the US Constitution... Pictures would have been nice in the Declaration of Independence, as well. We'd get a true idea of what was meant by "all men" are created equal.

07-09-2010, 10:16 AM	#12
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV Pictures would have been nice in the Declaration of Independence, as well. We'd get a true idea of what was meant by "all men" are created equal. We could perhaps have gotten some real insight into that "pursuit of happiness" part, too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2010, 01:08 PM	#13
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Perceiving "relevance" is a faculty, not a declaration or editing. (Unless of course, you're still living by that declaration, as a social contract, of course. )

07-09-2010, 06:08 PM	#14
FlashCube Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: In Transition Posts: 173	Originally posted by Parallax We could perhaps have gotten some real insight into that "pursuit of happiness" part, too. Go study Ben 'Jamin' Franklin.

07-10-2010, 10:52 AM	#15
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by GeneV Pictures would have been nice in the Declaration of Independence, as well. We'd get a true idea of what was meant by "all men" are created equal. In the terms of the Enlightenment Deism denied by people who want to rewrite our history as a 'Modern Evangelical Christian Nation,' ...'all men' meant something rather neutral regarding women. To their perspective, it didn't mean 'Deliberately excluding women.' It was just the way things kinda were. 'Men' even, was sometimes considered to be an inclusive term, ie 'a race of men,' etc. 'Mankind' became an inclusive term later.