 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vt edu> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
It's much harder to change the constitution.
> "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?
To pass a law, you need 50%+ of the House of Representatives to vote for it,
and 50%+ of the Senate to vote for it. Call it 300 people.
To amend the constitution, you need 75%+ of both halves, *and* then you ask
the states and 75%+ of the state governments also have to agree to it.
If you can't change the constitution at all, then you get things like
slavery being legal (oops) and no way to stop individual states from
continuing to do that.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> 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.
Yeah! You and what army?
A. The salvation Army?
And that is the mildest retort I can think of :)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> As someone on a forum elsewhere pointed out: If you can allow any laws
> on the grounds that the majority wants it, then you don't have a
> functioning constitution.
If YouTube was a democracy, it would be full of porn.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Yeah! You and what army?
>
> A. The salvation Army?
>
>
> And that is the mildest retort I can think of :)
>
>
After that I only warrant the mildest retort? I guess I will have to put
more effort into my set-ups. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
> After that I only warrant the mildest retort? I guess I will have to put
> more effort into my set-ups. ;)
I guess you will, child of the New World ;)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Clarence1898 wrote:
>> Without Florida's electoral votes, neither candidate had a majority. So whoever
>> won Florida's popular vote won their electoral vote and thus the election.
>> Since the vote count was so close in Florida, the big fuss was over the recount
>> of ballots. Some ballots were excluded because it wasn't clear which candidate
>> it was for.
>>
> The other complaint was that G. W. Bush's brother, Jeb, had appointed
> the people responsible for counting the votes in Florida, if I recall
> correctly.
Florida law expressly established a deadline of 14 November for that
election cycle's recounts, and the Florida Secretary of State (a
Republican appointee) stood by this.
Al Gore (who is my late father's fourth cousin) took her to court,
challenging this, and got the Florida State Supreme Court (which was
mostly Democratic appointees at the time) to rule an extension to the
recount deadline. The United States Supreme Court vacated that ruling,
and the 14 November deadline stood.
On 26 November the state canvassing board formally validated the vote
total (which gave Bush a 537 vote lead); this was vindicated by the
first state court to hear the case, but the Florida State Supreme Court
overruled this, and directed that 70,000 votes, which were ballots
rejected by the vote-counting machinery, be recounted. The US Supreme
Court ruled that the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling was
unconstitutional, and therefore let stand the existing vote totals.
Even if the US Supremes had not gone his way on the recounting, Bush did
have one final chance. The US Constitution says that the electors for
the Electoral College are chosen in a manner to be determined by the
state legislature. The Florida State legislature was heavily Republican
at the time, and was getting ready to pass legislation giving the vote
to Bush. This would have raised a ruckus, but it would have been
perfectly legal.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In this case democracy worked, whether you liked the end result or not.
> I say thumbs up.
It occurred to me that one could even view some of this as a question of
promoting the overthrow of the government. Maybe the thought is that Islam
is fine as long as you don't suggest that Sharia law should replace the
constitutional government currently in place. Minarets might be seen as more
of a suggestion along those lines than mere mosques.
In any case, I can see some wisdom in restricting the freedom of speech of
an organization devoted to the overthrow of democratic government, religion
or not. Which is not to say all Islam is this, but certainly much of it is.
--
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:
> In any case, I can see some wisdom in restricting the freedom of speech of
> an organization devoted to the overthrow of democratic government, religion
> or not. Which is not to say all Islam is this, but certainly much of it is.
I wouldn't say that constructing buildings constitutes freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means that you can express your views freely. For example,
if you want to publicly express your view that the government is corrupted
and should be overthrown, that's your prerogative. Rather ironically, being
able to express the opinion that freedom of speech should be limited or
removed does also fall into your prerogatives under freedom of speech.
Of course as soon as you *act* your your views, or incite others to act on
them, that's when you start going over the line of what is acceptable.
(Of course what constitutes incitement differs from country to country
and, unfortunately, *certain* type of incitement is interpreted to be more
illegal than others, even though the law itself makes no such distinction.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
