Warp wrote:
>   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

There's at least 52 jurisdictions with Constitutions here. :-)  Some states 
have more junk in their consitution and some states find it easier to change 
the constitution.

Indeed, it looks like Alabama is rather unusual in the respect of having six 
constitutions since it was established <200 years ago.
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/constitutions.html

Just glancing at that, it looks like a lot of the constitition(s) of Alabama 
didn't make it particularly difficult to amend, and of course every 
legislator would love to leave his mark on the constitution of a state (not 
unlike a dog with a fire hydrant).

>   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.

That's basically what we have in *most* places here, yes.

>   The Constitution is not law.

Yeah, that's generally true. Alabama is an outlier.

California has procedures in place that if you get enough popular votes, you 
can change things without the legislature, including the constitution. I.e., 
democracy can override the constitutional republic. The bigots needed to do 
that, because the constitution provided for basic human rights the bigots 
wanted to take away.

> 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.

The US constitution, and many state constitutions, work that way, yes. For 
example, even when they wanted to pass laws making alcohol illegal, the 
constitution was amended to say "It's OK to pass laws regulating alcohol" 
rather than "This is how we regulate alcohol."

I also find it interesting that the appellate courts usually send the case 
back down to the original courts for adjustment if someone wins an appeal. 
I.e., you don't se "the lower court calculated the fine wrong and it should 
be $X." They say "the lower court calculated the fine wrong, and they should 
recalculate it in light of our judgement."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message