POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Switzerland & minarets : Re: Switzerland & minarets Server Time
5 Sep 2024 05:25:48 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Switzerland & minarets  
From: Warp
Date: 4 Dec 2009 07:28:42
Message: <4b19007a@news.povray.org>
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Texas also changed their constitution to say "A marriage is defined as 
> between one man and one woman", and then added a clause that said "Nothing 
> is allowed to be like marriage" or some such to exclude "civil unions", 
> having mis-worded it (should have said "Nothing *else* is allowed to be like 
> marriage"), so now there's a big argument in Texas over whether anyone is 
> allowed to be married at all. *That* all started when a gay couple that 
> *was* married elsewhere and had moved to Texas tried to get divorced.

  Why do I get the feeling that the concept of "constitutional law" in the US
is a bit different from what it means here? For example, I read somewhere that

"the Constitution of Alabama, the longest in-use constitution in the
world, weighs in at over 350,000 words. It has 798 amendments, not
including amendments 621 and 693, which do not exist. They cover
everything from mosquito control taxes, to bingo, to protecting
against "the evils arising from the use of intoxicating liquors at all
elections," as well as the typical government operation stuff."

  That doesn't sound to me like a constitution. It sounds like regular law.

  At least here "the Constitution" defines the form of government and how
it's elected, as well as principles about the basic rights all citizens
have.

  The Constitution is not law. It's a set of principles by which actual
law is created (in other words, when a new law is proposed, it has to
conform to the basic principles set by the Constitution). You can't "break
the constitution". You cannot be sued and convicted by breaking the
constitution. You get sued and convicted by breaking the law (which has been
created in accordance to the basic principles of the constitution).

  Hence the Constitution is relatively short. It doesn't go into minute
details about extremely specific things. It mandates broad (but as unambiguous
as possible) limits under which actual law can be created. It says things
like "no one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a
manner violating human dignity." It doesn't specify things like mosquito
control taxes or bingo regulations. If those things need to be regulated,
they are done so by regular law.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.