new constitution, which favored closer ties with China over India.
Really? They have it ingrained in the constitution?
If Geo-political situation changes, and they need to re-balance their ties? They are going to need constitutional amendments?
The US view of the constitution as a sacred document is quite unusual by international standards. For many people in many countries the constitution is just another law.
Sacred is the right word. It is seen as an almost religious document written by men who were inspired (as seen by some) by "Christian values" (read God) and it enshrines and protect the most basic moral values.
They look back to the men that wrote it hoping to divine their intent much like those who read the bible.
Well, yes. It's the basis for the machinery of the US government. As time goes on, how do you know what a document means if it uses words and textual shorthand that are no longer in common parlance?
If the document is that far out of date, its meaning likely is too. The founding fathers were human too; skilled legislators to be sure, but we have skilled legislators today too. Rather than try to stretch a document written for a very different time to apply to modern disputes, why not hold a new convention, with a remit not to figure out what people were thinking 200+ years ago, but to figure out the best answers to the questions we have today?
>If the document is that far out of date, its meaning likely is too. The founding fathers were human too; skilled legislators to be sure, but we have skilled legislators today too.
I don't see how a constitution can go "out of date". It's the founding document for a nation - the individual states that compromise the US ratified a document that forms the basis of their association. Individual words and phrases have gone out of common parlance, but to change the meaning of the document would require the agreement of the parties, i.e. the states. Is it ever reasonable for the other party to tell you "Now that you've signed this contract, we're going to change it"?
The genius of the US constitution is that it sets up a mechanism for a system of government without getting into policy. Policy is decided by the legislature, and the legal code changes all the time.
But the structure has served us well and is better than, or at least no worse than, that of anyplace else. Human nature hasn't changed, after all, and there hasn't been any real advancement in government for thousands of years.
The lawyering over language happens because a document is just a means of communication, after all - there's no purpose in a written agreement if you're going to allow the meaning of the words in that agreement to change.
> Rather than try to stretch a document written for a very different time to apply to modern disputes, why not hold a new convention, with a remit not to figure out what people were thinking 200+ years ago, but to figure out the best answers to the questions we have today?
Because you don't need to change the structure of a government to change policy. The legislature is there to provide "the best answers to the questions we have today".
That view of the US Constitution is eroding quickly, if it's not gone already. People are more interested in magically finding new things in the Constitution than amending it to correct oversights.
So, what, India closed the border to a country of 30 million people — the border through which not just fuel but pretty much everything is imported — because LOL?
Southern Nepal — the part of the country that is very closely tied, culturally and economically, with India — went on a general strike for weeks, to the point that there were police killing strikers and strikers lynching police, because they were bored?
Sorry, I didn't read the constitution, myself. I took the word of our local guide, an incredibly bright, aware Nepali gentleman and professor of anthropology in Kathmandu, and pretty much everyone else in the country with whom I spoke about the situation. (The exceptions being people who either didn't understand the situation well enough to comment, or didn't feel comfortable discussing it with a foreigner.)
Meanwhile, Wikipedia claims, "The promulgation of the new constitution was immediately followed by virtual blockade of all checkpoints at Nepal-India border." but without any citation.
Really? They have it ingrained in the constitution? If Geo-political situation changes, and they need to re-balance their ties? They are going to need constitutional amendments?