are rights-based state constitutions (national and/or international?) inherently imperial

Take a nation with a rationally and predictably definable polity -- whoever is born here, whoever is within our borders, whoever wishes to live here -- and if there's nothing otherwise imperialistic in the national identity, and I don't know why you the constitution would push that nation into imperialism. Same thing for an international constitution without asterisks in the definitions.

aaron's thread abt where rights come from moved a way away from this question, sadly: the argt abt how "rights" are constituted in re eg the current UN charter (or indeed a future better charter, assuming an interntional community of law is considered a good thing in the abstract, unrelated to shortcomings of present situation etc etc)

I think the problem is in the idea of power-of-purchase as entitlement, which is nowhere explicit but does kind of run the world.

except it's not a joke really

Having said that we can all agree on some shared values lets start with say the sanctity of human life but even these are open to interpretation, some US states allow inhumane and brutal judicial killing, some european nations allow assisted suicide, both an anathema to current British law.

Basically I reckon nations should allow their constitutions to reflect current values more easily, rather than have national values dictated by the constitution.

As regards the particular US situation. The US have a constitution that for a large period of history was the most radical on the planet, guaranteeing certain freedoms that were unavailable elsewhere (as long as you weren't a slave), but now certain tenets of that document seem out of date and anachronistic, what's more the guardians of the document (high priests at the one eyed ziggurat), The Supreme Court justices, are deeply political and decisions on what certain rights mean are based on the political balance in that court rather than on impartial judgment. What's more Judges are only allowed to rule on the letter of the law, rather than on the intention of the lawmakers, so eventually the interpretation of the law comes to fit political ends rather than the grand ideals originally intended.

"original intention" is usually used to ensure that constitutions are used against the evolving needs etc of those affected

"the interpretation of the law comes to fit political ends" = a good thing surely (if you believe in democracy)?

Politics = The cynical manipulation of democracy

ed i wonder how much time you have spent in the us? if you have been here, then you surely know about how our country is all about myths. think about the "american dream." people still hold jeffersonian beliefs (jefferson saw america as a agrarian society and was anti-city, anti-centralization among other things). even though, as you have pointed out, the industrial revoltion has occured here, well, myths myths myths. I know I am being vague, and I'm sorry, but I don't know what to say. I am still trying to get my head around this topic, namely, how "truth" is what citizens want, for whatever reason, to believe is true, regardless.

(I feel like having a thread where we talk about the necessity of returning to old crusty standbys such as Truth, Rationality, Elitism. I can't help but thinking that the relativism of America eg "I can believe whatever the fuck I want to and who are you to differ?" is more oppressive than, say, Mies van der Rohe and canonicism, especially since there are enough muliticultural departments at major colleges here to ensure that blacks, women, hispanics, etc., are not excluded from decision-making and canon-forming).

As for the original question, my answer would be: no, assuming a complete lack of human beings on the planet. a constitution in a vacuum, with nobody alive to carry out its dictates, does not impose anything, and is much more open-ended. I admit it has been a while since I have read the framing documents of the US (constitution, declaration of independance, federalist papers, only one of which is binding, but all of which figure greatly into the conception of America), but I don't remember reading a line like "all of the universal and unalienable rihts he have enumerated that are meant to apply to all human beings, actually only apply to americans". Even though the American government only interests itself in ensuring the laws of America for Americans, that should not negate in anyone's mind the universality of the inalienable part. Extending those inalienable rights is the next step for america after including women and ethnic minorities. I don't see this happening anytime soon, and so the document becomes imperial. imperialism depends on seeing the soon-to-be subjugated as "less".

strange: our ability to foister freedom on other countries is wholly dependant on denying the freedom of the citizens until we are through with our little project. in opther words, once we conquer Iraq, then we will be interested in securing rights for the people (or so we say).

Thus amendments. True, the last one in the US to be approved was thirty years, the last one to be seriously considered twenty, but it could happen again (and would be intriguing to see happen).

(ps i missed rousseau off the earlier fite line-up)

*hides*

The ass-biting part of this strategy that the US deprives itself of one of the only tools it has for whipping other nations into the shape it wants (when it lacks the firepower or political capital to do what it did in Iraq).

And what of the recent bizarre statements to the effect that "it wasn't CPA or US troops that raided Chalabi's house, it was IRAQI troops" or "Berg was never held by the US, he was held by IRAQ"