Oh, I know.

I'm just re-enforcing - with facts - what you've been saying since the beginning because some people can't seem to recognize how dangerous opening such a precedent would be. And yet... all they have to do is look around them.

Doc, both Australia and the UK have their own constitutional drafts, and both amend then as necessary.... to keep up with the times and to function efficiently within an ever changing world.  In other words, they're not outdated.... unlike another that could do with a good sprucing up and its cobwebs brushed off.

As for for Her Majesty's 'subjects'....and I'm one of 'em, well we don't serve the Queen or her family... we haven't for hundreds of years.  The monarchy today is little more than a tradition.  In fact, Buckingham Palace is owned by the state, and ALL employees within its bounds, including the Queen, are employees of the British government.  Yes, that's right, Westminster pays Her Majesty a salary.   So no, the UK is not as archaic as you may think.

Oh, and another thing, the ills of the world, particularly those of the US, are frequently attributed to the British during 'these' discusions.  Now while it may be true that the Brits were historically arrogant and foolish when traversing the planet to 'colonise' it, I think it's about time Americans stopped trying to lay blame with the Brits, French, Spanish, etc, and started owning their own national arrogance and stupidity.   Iraq, anyone?

Okay, so I'll be none too popular with many in the US about now, but frankly, I don't give a damn.  Now I'm not trying to be offensive, though some will choose to see it that way; however, what I am doing is forwarding a point of view that is NOT American.  Oh, how refreshing!

I know some who would brand me as Anti-American. Nope......nothing could be further from the truth. I love my country but I have no love for those wannabe rulers. Do I agree with starkers statement? Yes!

We update things as necessary. Some "get it right" the first time, and fight to keep it that way.

So...the Brits pay them a royal salary out of tradition? Like they need it (their estimated worth is in excess of $22 billion). Wonder where all that came from. You complain about bankers? What about them? lol. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-royals-wealth-idUKKCN0R71ZI20150907

The origins of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are EXACTLY what they are and were. We're discussing the right to privacy. It has an origin and a raison d'etre. Fact. My responses also address the need of some to bash the USA. But then, jealousy is what it is: The sincerest compliment.

Hmmm, Doc.

For many, many, years after WWII the world's view on Americans is that they were the 'good guys'. The nice smiley giants chewing gum, smoking cigarettes and giving chocolates to kids. Hollywood, Humphrey Bogart, Ava Gardner, cowboys and indians; the world was in love with America.

In the days right after 9/11 I remember the world was totally at America's feet. Our hearts were with them and we were all Americans that day.

And then Iraq happened. And Libya. And Wikileaks. And Guantanamo. And the TSA. The hypocrisy was clearly visible for all to see. The propaganda, the lies used to drag other countries into war and destroy their leaders because they did not suite America's policy at the time, etc...

Slowly the world started seeing the USA for what it really is today: a country interested in nothing else than protecting it's own interests.

No country is without fault. Not the Brits, not the USA, not (oh boy, ahaha) Portugal. But to understand this you have to be humble, you have to stop thinking you are the best country, the best people in the world. You're not. Far from it. And remember where you all came from: old Europe.

At this time I can tell you that the world view on Americans is that they are generally not to be trusted. That's a long way off from what it used to be - so just ask yourself why.

I think that the problem is that for as long as Americans think that they are without fault, most will fail to question the actions of their own government and make their leaders accountable for those actions. Their forefathers, the founders of the country, the REAL good guys, warned them about this: just look at the title of this very topic (and who said it).

Jorge, you hit the nail squarely on the head, Americans are taught.... er, indoctrinated from word go that the US is the greatest thing since sliced bread... that because they are the good guys, they are the worlds' policemen.  The patriotism and jingoism that accompanied it was designed to make Americans feel proud and like they were a nation of heroes doing the world a favour, but the truth was/is more that young Americans are merely cannon fodder and sent to war to further the interests of the powers that be.  There's no true heroism attached to an unjust cause, and when Uncle Sam sticks his nose squarely in where it does NOT belong - Iraq, anyone - the only real heroes to come out of that travesty are the innocent Iraqi people, whose lives were further devastated by an illegal and unjust invasion.

The world was told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the US would go in to protect Iraq's citizens and neighbours.  What complete and utter bullshit.  Yes, Saddam was a monster, but a spade was not a spade.... no, it was an oil well... several of them in fact.  Seriously, if the US had given more of a fuck about people and peoples rights, why the fuck has it not invaded Zimbabwe to save/protect the people being systematically murdered, tortured and wrongfully imprisoned by Robert Mugabe and his henchmen?  And what about the atrocities of Boko Harum?   Seriously, saving/protecting the people was never the goal.... because if they were, those monsters would have been removed long ago.

Yup, it's called selective invasions.  Saddam had oil and other resources which could [and did] benefit the US....and then there's the strategic position for the US in the Middle East.... hence Saddam's people got a 'humanitarian'  invasion.  On the other hand,  Mugabe and Boko Harum had/have nothing of real value to the US, nothing strategic enough to warrant it... hence no humanitarian invasion for the downtrodden and brutalised in Zimbabwe or Nigeria.

My grandmother used to say: "Sometimes somebody needs to speak the truth so that others can recognise truth.... to hear truth so they can know truth exists."

Sadly, some can stare truth in the face and still not be able to recognise it.  Then there are some who know truth, yet still refuse to acknowledgie it.

Never said "Greatest" anywhere, and never said America is without fault.

Strawman argument, Jorge.

As for the "not trusting Americans"? Your bias is showing. They don't trust "America" due to the NSA, etc. 

That is NOT "Americans". That is the government: The same government which needs to be watched by the citizens, to make sure it is in compliance with the Constitution.

I think, before friendships are lost, it may be a good idea for everyone to just walk away from commenting any further with what you think of another persons country, government, constitution, etc.

This post has seriously gone off track and not in a good way.

Not really. I was reacting to what was implied in your 'jealousy is what it is: The sincerest compliment.'.

The US is in a very, very, difficult position because of its 'Fiat' currency and the Petrodollar. In 1971 Nixon decided to abandon the international gold standard (where paper money was backed up by a country's gold reserves). At the same time he made a deal with Saudi Arabia so that oil could only be purchased in US Dollars. Under this arrangement, any country that sought to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia would be required to first exchange their own national currency for U.S. dollars. By 1975, all of the OPEC nations had agreed to price their own oil supplies exclusively in U.S. dollars in exchange for weapons and military protection.

This turned the US Dollar into the global reserve currency and, for all intents and purposes, gave the USA a free license to print money.

As long as oil can only be purchased in US Dollars, this 'house of cards' will stand. The problem is that several countries have already attempted to move away, or already have moved away, from the petrodollar system. Examples include Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea. Gadaffi in Libya also wanted to move away from the petrodollar, introducing instead the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold.

Do all these names ring a bell? Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran?

What is happening in our world today makes a whole lot of sense if you simply read between the lines and ignore the “official” reasons that are given in the mainstream media. This was never about liberating a country from a despot. It was, and is, about the almighty dollar.

And, sincerely, I'm not sure the US has much of a choice at this point. If they don't protect the petrodollar system, massive inflationary pressures will strike the US. And if the US economy goes down the drain, so does the world-wide economy because we all depend on each other. Look at what happened in 2008 because of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and unbridled capitalism: the fallout of that drove the whole world straight into a huge economic crisis.

Hey, not fair, you added this later.

I'm not being biased. Just stating what I see around me. And yes, you're right, it's the US government people don't trust, obviously.

And I agree with you, it's the citizen's responsibility to make sure their own government is in compliance with the Constitution. But if they don't and allow the government to do whatever it pleases, what then?

The sheer absurdity of the revisionist history coming to this thread is mind blowing.  Libya wasn't even a US concern, France and the UK spearheaded it through NATO and the UN, our wonderful president was just dumb enough to go along for the ride.

The US government doesn't give two shits about Boko Haram in Africa killing other Africans because it matters not one wit to our national security.  Shitty, but true, they're not bothering us if they're busy killing other dirt poor peasants.  Personally, I'd kill all uppity Muslims causing trouble for other people regardless of where they are just because it makes the world a better place, but our governments foreign policy is nothing if not myopic and blithe.

Mugabe really isn't that bad these days, he hasn't committed genocide since the 80's.  In case you don't remember, Reagan invaded Grenada to the cheers of it's people(we have our own holiday there) and got nothing but shit for his good deed from the rest of the world.  What good would it have done for him to get in the middle of a civil war, against an elected leader that wasn't threatening his own people with summary execution if they broke curfew?  At this point he's a more petty version of Putin, not exactly one of the great evils on the planet, just a run of the mill evil bastard that kills people to stay in power on occasion.

The US government did give a shit about Saddam because Saddam was a rich bastard with close ties to multiple terrorist organizations, one of which had recently knocked a couple buildings down, along with attempted and successful attacks against US interests in the past, including an assassination attempt on Bush 41 in Kuwait, and a weapons program that everyone, including Saddam, thought was still going places, wrong or not.  There was also existing legal cause for the invasion courtesy of previous UN resolutions authorizing force in response to countless violations of their restrictions following the first Gulf War.  They were also miserable, not a whole lot of suffering taking place as a result of the invasion, most of them were a hell of a lot better off.  Even the current mess is because the Sunni Arabs(fucking Muslims!) are obsessed with overthrowing Assad, and turned ISIS into a regional power before it started biting them in the ass.  They're primarily having so much success because the Sunni's(fucking Muslims, again!) welcome them in the hopes that they'll get to kill all the Shia that are no longer under their boot.

Personally, I'd have just flown a B-2 over his palace one day and called it good, but Bush had this crazy idea that they could be civilized and build a peaceful society together instead of devolving into sectarian violence once their brutal dictator was gone, it's not like it's never happened before...

Edit: JC, we already have inflation, it's just a matter of the government playing pretend.  A 20 ounce soda was a buck 10-15 years ago, it's like $1.80 now.  Meat, veggies, etc, they've all gone up similarly.  The government simply changes the way they measure things to include or exclude things like housing based on whether it's convenient or not at the time.  Countries dropping the dollar have far less impact on our inflation than our yearly money printing does.

And I'm the one being accused of revisionism? Sarkozy would never have the balls to initiate or suggest an attack on Libya on his own, although the attack on Libya also served the interests of France at the time. Do you really think the US, with their ability to veto any resolution and still withdrawing from Iraq at the time, would just 'go along for the ride'?

Nah, the US initiated the whole process and Sarkozy and Tony Blair jumped at the opportunity to have some say on what happened in Libya once Gadaffi had been deposed. Sharing the spoils, you could say.

In fact, the attack on Libya started being planned by the US right after 9/11.

In this Amy Goodman 2007 interview with General Wesley Clark, he states:

"I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About 10 days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon, and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. [...]

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it’s worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" — meaning the secretary of defense’s office — "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don’t show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!"

Bush had what?! lol

Inflation is one thing. Hyperinflation (or a country's total economic collapse) quite another.

Actually? More to do with refresh rates.

Which means what? The world is flat because lots of people say so? Truth has nothing to do the number of believers.

Damn! It isn't?!

Wesley Clark is the guy that was forced into retirement after he tried to start WW3 by ordering NATO troops to attack Russian troops in Kosevo, fortunately, his order was refused by the Brits he gave it to.  His relationship with the truth is strained, at best, I put zero stock in anything he says, particularly when at this point in time he was a disgraced general from the opposite side of the political fence, forced out of the military, and extremely unlikely to be speaking with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz about anything, let alone classified plans to start multiple wars on two continents.  That any plans by that crowd would have had anything to do with the succeeding administrations actions a decade later is laughably preposterous.

In actual fact, the kinds that are matters of public record, France, the UK, and the Arab League were all calling for intervention long before the current administration started backing a No Fly Zone in the UN.  The US did not, as a simple matter of public record, spearhead the intervention in Libya.  France in particular was quite exuberant in their participation, launching the plurality of airstrikes.  The UK even outspent us, and no one outspends us on anything...

Iraq, like much of the Middle East, is three factions, Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab.  We owe this to the way the UK split them up, so they are indeed at fault for such things.   They all hate each other, they're all tribal cultures, and they all want their own country.  The Kurds want Kurdestan, the Shia and Sunni Arabs just want to be running Iraq.  Bush had this idea that we could set up a stable democracy in a tribal shit hole filled with three groups that loath each other on principle and have a long history of murdering each other by the thousands.  Hence the crazy idea.

The US currently has somewhere around 60% of the reserve currency, with the Euro being the next largest chunk.  No hyper inflation came with the UK losing their status as the reserve currency of choice, and they were once in an even larger position.  What decline they suffered precipitated the loss of their position in the market, it did not come as a result.