Warp wrote:
>   (Unlike in the US (if I'm not mistaken), the constitution in Finland is
> not an actual law.

Yes. In the US, the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." After 
that is federal laws, then state constitutions, then state laws. 
(Actually, I'm pretty sure individual federal laws supposedly trump 
state constitutions, but I'm not sure.)

On the other hand, the only way the federal constitution is actually 
used is to invalidate particular other laws. Since most of the 
constitution is stuff along the lines of either "Congress is authorized 
to do X" or "Congress is not authorized to regulate Y", one gets a 
constitutional decision by doing Y, getting arrested for it, then 
arguing that Congress shouldn't be allowed to regulate Y in the first 
place. It's a fairly painful process.

> Unlike in the US, constitution is not
> really something you can plead to (eg. you don't "plead the fifth" or
> anything like that here).

I think that's more TV. What one really says is "I refuse to answer on 
the grounds it may incriminate me."  Now, if the judge makes you answer 
anyway, you then go thru the whole appeal bit again and show how the 
judge did something the constitution said he shouldn't, etc.

>   In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, 

There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit 
what can be passed as a law, as the constitution doesn't actually 
include instructions for how to invalidate laws that were passed in 
spite of the constitution saying they're OK. Personally, I can't imagine 
  how else you'd expect it to work effectively, given that at this point 
our President and his cronies aren't even listening to Congress let 
alone old pieces of paper.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message