My Skepticism Regarding Constitutions.

I have to say I have rather scant faith in constitutions when it comes to safeguarding rights. At the end of the day, a constitution is just a piece of paper. If the army decides "fuck it, we're taking over" or people elect a non-democratic party, that constitution is going down as surely as any other system.

Ok, you need 2/3rds of the vote instead of 1/2, but other than that, a constitution doesn't seem like, well, that much of an extra protective mechanism. If extremist elements get strong enough, something is going to take it out, if not by legal methods then by outright violence.

I would wager its not constitutions that protect democratic freedoms, but culture, and the loyalties of the democratic inhabitants and especially the armed forces and police that are supposed to protect said inhabitants.

Constitutions are just a means to an end, they serve as a foundation to stand upon, a safeguard, but not the ultimate protection.

However, they are reasonably convenient and accessible, which is desirable, don't you think?

& That is exactly correct - constitutions are basically representations of commitments that people make towards progress. With that said, if the people have in their collective consciousness that their constitution came from them rather than just being a piece of paper, the words on that piece of paper gain a lot more power.

Once it passes from the collective consciousness, bad things start happening.

For instance, the People's Republic of China has a constitution that allegedly guarantees all kinds of rights.

edited 29th Jun '11 12:03:31 PM by ssfsx17

^&^^ You're correct. And I suppose having a legal framework for these things is useful. (Though the US at least seems to get snarled up in that framework an awful lot. I can't speak for other countries with constitutions as I never hear from them. Do the French and Germans encounter arguments over what is constitutional often?)

But what you're basically saying is: "all laws are bullshit. Now gimmie your lunch money, shrimp". So the question of Constitutions doesn't really enter into it.

As a matter of fact, we do, and more so since Sarkozy came to power. One interesting point is that our Constitutional Council has two kind of members: the ones chosen like U.S. Justices, and all former presidents. And with both Chirac and Giscard d'Estain not really liking Sarkozy, the Council is really doing its job as a balance against some of his worst abuses. For example, with the thrice-damned HADOPI law, the Internet connexion would have been automatically cut for three-time offenders, without any judge involved. Well, the law still passed, but with large modifications that just made it a money sinkhole rather than the feared Big Brother system (it's inefficient, catches only old people who tried to download the last movie and don't know how to adapt, while all the big downloaders knew exactly how to counter it 18 months before it got voted - and nicely explained how to everyone willing to listen).

It's a safeguard causing any large abuse to be more difficult to perform by legal means, nothing more, nothing less. But, as all political systems, it cannot balance global disinterest in politics.

x3

People get worked up over a lot of things in legal ways, you think it's just arguments over the Constitution? Those might make a lot of attention, but they're probably one out of a thousand actual cases.

They're just more meaningful compared to the ones where Dick is arguing with John over whose fence is over the line.

edited 29th Jun '11 12:46:21 PM by blueharp

Hologram of Liberty is about how constitutions only give a hologram of liberty.

Is hologram the pretensions way to say "illusion" now?

That book basically states that the United States Constitution implies a stronger federal government. We know that the current Constitution took a step away from liberty when the Articles of Confederation were discarded.

It's not as surprising as it seems once you take a look at it and think about it. The original Constitution by itself isn't about freedom at all, but about having a stable government. It's republican because the three strongholds check each other, but it doesn't get into liberties of people. That was provided by the Bill of Rights.

It doesn't mean a Constitution equates to just a hologram, which is a different story.

First of all, I resent the implication that I said laws don't matter. What I'm saying is its not a piece of paper that lends credibility to those laws, its the culture of the people and the collective will to see the freedoms and safeguards those laws represent upheld. "Laws don't matter so give me your lunch money" is the very last thing I wanted to convey!

EDIT: That said, the arguments presented here have made me a little less ready to dismiss constitutions as so much paper... particularly as it blocked the worst of that internet law... thanks Rufus.

edited 29th Jun '11 1:07:54 PM by GameChainsaw

Well, in the sense, the very faith in the Constitution is what makes such a document work. People uphold it, and that faith protects them.

There's the fact that not only we use a set document, but also our personal beliefs that liberty should be protected. Did you know that the Corwin Amendment, which protects states' rights from federal intervention (including slavery), is still pending? Yet no one is going to finish ratifying it.

No actually, I didn't know that. (I'm sure there's a law somewhere saying its still legal to shoot Welshmen with a longbow in Chester... its from Edward the 1sts forcible settlement of Wales. Need to check if that one is still around. Needless to say, its not enforced.)

Fix'd.

Hmm... I think I've followed this particular chain of thought to its end, and found my logic is flawed...

EDIT: Like my spelling.

edited 29th Jun '11 1:38:22 PM by GameChainsaw