[Fargren]

But the any constitution may have(read, HAS) things that are wrong. Constitutions were written by people too. People are fallible, and the possibility exists that going against what they wrote ten-score years ago is just plain wrong, and going against it is the correct thing to do. I don't think leaders should fear correcting the wrongs in the building blocks of their countries; it should be their utmost responsibility.

Now, this is not what is happening here. Not at all. But taking the constitution as sacrosanct and making going against it punishable by death is not a good idea. Is dogmatic and wrong. The responsibility of politicians is towards the people, not towards the constitution.

[andrewflnr]

There's a pretty measurable difference between trying to fix the constitution and "abusing" it, which generally entails flagrantly ignoring it.

Personally, I don't think the death penalty should be used for anything less than willfully causing the death of of an innocent victim.

[blueprint]

Before denying something as wrong, you should point out the concrete problems.

I agree that laws are made by men. But the US constitution was written for the living people. Corrupt leaders are corrupted because they in fact don't serve the living. Over time, the man-made laws have changed as well.

However, just like in math, it's possible to prove whether something is right or wrong by verifying on a fixed principle. All the answers are determined by the questions. So we can only tell if laws are right or wrong by evaluating them case-by-case.

If the equation in math changes, we will get many answers from a single question. That's why to evaluate truth and justice we need one principle, not many.

[wslh]

The responsibility of politicians is towards the people, not towards the constitution.

Do you mean to the current people? and/or the future generations? and/or the past ones?

[Fargren]

The current people, and the future generations inasmuch as their well-being is relevant and important to the current ones.

[wslh]

For example, what do you think about the current constitutional issues in Argentina? do you agree with the supreme court ruling?

[Fargren]

Are we talking about the judicial system reform? I believe the current system of choosing the magistrate is quite bad, but the alternative that's being suggested is rife with it's own problems. As such, I don't think it's worth changing the constitution. I really like the current composition of the Supreme Court, and I trust their decision. I do think there are ways to change the system for the best, and I hope there'll be a joint effort to come up with a better alternative to the current system.