@ Amsterdamsky

It is increasingly apparent that 'traveller' was right when he referred to your 'contributions' as "a collection of ideocies".  And, have the decency, man, to address directly the person who you are quoting.

The distinction between tradition and formal legalisms (i.e. the debate between Cranmer and Vanhauwaert) is obviously lost on you.  And you do not seem to realise that your own sneer about "the challenge of slavery to the US Constitution" exactly illustrates my central point in that debate.  I hope that you realise that "slavery" is of all times and of all places, but I am doubtful that you do.  Instead of focusing on modern forms of slavery in the contemporary world, you prefer to selectively focus on a particular form in a particular place two centuries ago, for obvious ideological reasons and smallminded adherence to particular prejudices.  And it is embarrasing, indeed, that you have difficulty comprehending the role and the rationale for a variety of actions by parliaments, local authority boards, etc...w.r.t issues like obscenity laws, alcohol consumption regulations, etc...  Indeed, your absurd linkage of "police abuses" to the "Founding Fathers" shows what kind of 'kettle of fish' you represent.  The Founding Fathers may have lived a long time ago, but you for sure are no improvement on them, despite the advantage of two further centuries of 'evolution'.

Finally, I am a Belgian citizen, and have no "anglo-saxon traditions" in a narrow sense.  That certainly doesn't prevent me from being able to appreciate some of these traditions and observe their fruits in the real world.  But that must be incomprehensible to your parroting kind of perverse western selfhaters.

"However, Cranmer may have something of substance to say if his comments were to imply that traditions can be more important than formal legalistic texts."

For the UK.  Without a doubt the very few liberties left in the US would have been long gone without the Constitution.  Most of them have already been gutted even WITH a Constitution.  I certainly hope your new growing muslim community will respect and cherish your anglo-saxon traditions you hold so dear. 

For the US clearly slavery was not a challenge to the Constitution or was conscription (due process?  certified letter OK).  Obscenity laws clearly are not allowed by the 1st amendment.  Also, why did it take an amendment to ban alcohol but a simple majority to ban marijuana?  It is illegal to be outside in southern california after 10:00 pm if you are under 18.  Figure that one out.  Police abuses regarded confiscated money or property in drug crimes would make the Founding Fathers roll in their graves I am sure.

@ Van Hauwaert

I tend to agree with you on this subject. It would appear that 'Cranmer' likes to play wordgames.  He certainly displays some typical British 'excentricity' to which, of course, he is entitled.   Citizenship simply means that one 'belongs' to a certain 'polity'.  And it doesn't really matter whether that involves being a "subject" to an anachronistic royalty or belonging to a republican political entity.  In the modern - and dangerous - world, governments do need practical means that enable identification of any and all persons on their territory. 

However, Cranmer may have something of substance to say if his comments were to imply that traditions can be more important than formal legalistic texts.  Clearly, the quality of a democracy has little to do with fancy words in legal texts (e.g. constitutions and the like), but everything with actual implementation (of laws) and with 'practice'.   That means that it should be measured by practical things, like actual respect for freedom of opinion (or political speech) and with de facto  alternation of power at regular intervals.    

Fingerprints are only the precursor of the real stuff: the built-in chip with bluetooth and gps.

"The UK system is 'scary' because it is free. "

Your free system feels like a police state to me.  I suppose if you don't incite racial hatred or express your non-right to free speech and do everything the government tells you to do it might seem free.  For that matter the US is not much better except that the 1st amendment still only been partially eroded (FCC fines for "obscenity" yet the 1st amendment will not allow them to state what might constitute an "obscenity" until they issue the $320,000 fine).  Holland is pretty free it you have citizenship and your address is somehow misplaced by the government.

"Every forged passport is a crime; but it is not one that should affect my genuine passport" 

My point is that it WILL affect the value of your passport when you pass a checkpoint (lets say Serbia) where they have been barraged with handwritten Irish passports with a stapled on photo and you happen to be Irish.  On my first visit to europe in the mid 90's I was shocked that banks would not accept US $100 bills because most were counterfeit and they didn't have the means to tell the difference.  The several thousand dollars I had with me were completely useless. 

This seems to be a hot debate in the UK that I fail to understand.  How else do you prove your citizenship?  If your citizenship has no value then this is a severe imposition.  Every forged passport lowers the value of your citizenship.  How and when they check you ID is an entirely different matter.  The UK system really was scary but the debate seemed to center on the actual cards not when you could legally be asked to show ID.

Cranmer emailed you about this story a few days ago, and is delighted The Brussels Journal has featured it. His Grace wondered whether the compulsory collection of biometric date from birth was a prelude to the compulsory insertion of microchips from birth...EU Children to be fingerprinted