Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> That's considerably different wording, saying 'everyone is forbidden 
>> from constructing any building that doesn't follow X design' instead 
>> of 'you aren't allowed to build Y structure that happens to be 
>> important to you'.
> 
> You can say "Nobody, including Christians, is allowed to build a miniret."
> 
> We get that here too. "Neither straight men nor gay men are allowed to 
> marry other men."

Zing.  What I was getting at was more along the lines of "it's less 
troubling if the Swiss are just saying 'nobody can build anything that's 
not little-Swiss-village in theme' instead of 'nobody's allowed to build 
one particular building'".  The Arc d'Triumphe and Empire State Building 
would then be just as disallowed.  But they're specifically targeting 
minarets, and only minarets.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Zing.  What I was getting at was more along the lines of 

Yes, I recognised that. I was just giving an example of how no matter what 
law you make, someone will figure out a way around it, for good or bad. :-)

I wasn't really agreeing with or disputing against the result. Merely 
pointing out it's easy to target whatever you like.

We also have laws here against making laws about specific individuals. So we 
also get laws like "this applies to any company incorporated in Maricopa 
County on April 20, 1989". Which, of course, is exactly one company.

-- 
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

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

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> When a specific construction regulation is put in place to harass a 
> specific minority, even if it's by majority decision, that's not ok.

> And declaring it country-wide?  That's far worse.  That's de facto 
> saying "WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIND HERE", not "we'd be able to just all get 
> along if nobody wanted to do things /different/".

  Well, do you know what you can do, as a citizen (assuming this kind of thing
is happening in your own country)? Subject the problem to the democratic
process. That's what democracy is for.

  In other words, you vote for representatives who share your views, or you
get into politics yourself and try to get into congress, where you can make
a change. That's your right in democratic countries, and that's how democracy
works.

  In this case democracy worked, whether you liked the end result or not.
I say thumbs up.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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.
> 

Because the USA is a litigious bunch. The US constitution, not delving
into the state level, does set forth the way that the government works.
Until the amendments, the document describes how laws are created, a
very vague description of elections, how long terms are to be, who can
be elected, how the Supreme Court works, how the constitution can be
amended, and so forth. It was not until the Bill of Rights, the first 10
amendments, that basic human rights were added to the document.

And it is only 4,400 words.

>   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.
> 

About the same here.

>   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).
> 

Alright, so lets use an example from the US constitution, because I have
to admit to not reading any other one. The First Amendment says, in
part, that Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been taken to extends that protection to
the state level and beyond, such that no government can remove those rights.

Now, what happens when some officer of the state, say a police officer
or public official, takes it upon them self to interfere with an
individual's freedom of speech? How would other systems handle that?

In the USA, the only people who can be sued for violating the
constitution are those in the government, not individual citizens.

>   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.
> 

As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
amendment is the better way to go.

Corruption and lawsuits, sometimes I think that is all that runs this
country.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
> amendment is the better way to go.

  Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?

  "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
in the first place?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>> amendment is the better way to go.
> 
>   Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
> 
>   "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
> in the first place?
> 

Which is probably one of the reasons why there was so much fuss about an 

written one. </smugness>

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>> amendment is the better way to go.
> 
>   Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
> 
>   "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
> in the first place?
> 

I didn't say it was a good thing. But, as long as the document is
amendable and the government wants it's agenda promoted over another,
they will find a way to do this.

There is also the issue of the state, and it's population's, view of how
their state constitution interacts with the federal constitution. In the
USA, some of the states that existed before the Civil War tend to view
that their constitution are on equal ground with the federal one, while
the federal constitution overrides state law, by way of the 14th
amendment. Others have the constitution as the bulk of their law.

Moot? *shrug* It depends on what your view of the total meaning of the
constitution is. Some states disagree with you, and feel that all their
laws should be backed by the constitution. And since changing even the
state constitution is harder than changing state laws, the populous of
those states apparently agreed.

Democracy in action.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>>> amendment is the better way to go.
>>
>>   Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of
>> moot?
>>
>>   "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just
>> add
>> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a
>> constitution
>> in the first place?
>>
> 
> Which is probably one of the reasons why there was so much fuss about an

> written one. </smugness>
> 

Don't make us come spread democracy.

Post a reply to this message

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