Why is the style of the Constitution so formal?

[Anarchist420]

The Articles of Confederation was friendlier (it even mentioned that the document was simply to ensure friendship between the States), very informal (the Great Governor of the World... filled the hearts...), and rather wordy. The Constitution, on the other hand, is very formal, plain, unoriginal, clear and concise, (especially with it's mandate that the Supreme Court, rather than the people, determine what it means).

I don't know how any could like the Piece of Shit Constitution. It's served Obama, FDR, and the hypertestosteronal (not my invention) elites better than it has served the people.

Of course, the Articles of Confederation failed not because it was too weak (it wasn't) but because it didn't place any limits on Congress printing money (the bad money drove the specie out) and because it mandated that all debt accumulated by the first two Continental Congress be paid back (instead of decentralizing it based upon population).

 

[IronWing]

The Constitution, on the other hand, is very formal, plain, unoriginal, clear and concise, ...

No one wants a constitution like that, now do they?


Given that we argue about the plain wording of the Constitution as it is, I don't see how flowering it up would help matters.

 

[zephyrprime]

Anarchist, why do you ask such lame questions? Go attention whore on tumblr where attention whoring belongs.

 

[nehalem256]

The Constitution, on the other hand, is very formal, plain, unoriginal, clear and concise

.... isn't that a good thing?

 

[brycejones]

.... isn't that a good thing?

God I can't believe I'm agreeing with Nehalem on something.

OP do you have a freaking point?

 

[brycejones]

Anarchist, why do you ask such lame questions? Go attention whore on tumblr where attention whoring belongs.

Anarchist only asks lame questions while high. Draw your own conclusions about how much time the OP spends high.

 

[rommelrommel]

What can you be high on to justify this level of stupid? Like... we're talking about huffing gas or something here.

 

[88keys]

The Articles of Confederation was friendlier (it even mentioned that the document was simply to ensure friendship between the States), very informal (the Great Governor of the World... filled the hearts...), and rather wordy. The Constitution, on the other hand, is very formal, plain, unoriginal, clear and concise, (especially with it's mandate that the Supreme Court, rather than the people, determine what it means).

I don't know how any could like the Piece of Shit Constitution. It's served Obama, FDR, and the hypertestosteronal (not my invention) elites better than it has served the people.

Of course, the Articles of Confederation failed not because it was too weak (it wasn't) but because it didn't place any limits on Congress printing money (the bad money drove the specie out) and because it mandated that all debt accumulated by the first two Continental Congress be paid back (instead of decentralizing it based upon population).

Because the articles of confederation worked so well... It's not like it lead to an armed rebellion, and as I recall, the states did a great job at voluntarily funding the continental army.

Who needs laws and rules?