D
DesEsseintes
Guest
As called for by Ishmael.
It is not my place as a foreign devil to suggest constitutional amendments in the US, and I have not done so. This is a place to discuss those and make a case for amendments you think are necessary. Guns are, of course, the prime topic at the moment, in the light of yesterday's massacre, but rather than setting up yet another thread discussing specifics, I thought this might be a place for the Board's constitutional experts and its liberals to discuss and argue issues generally.
I will make a few, more or less random, observations, based on what I have read here over the last 24 hours or so.
1) The UK does have a written constitution, of course. This is a common misnomer. It is just that our constitution is not conveniently gathered into a single place. Magna Carta, The Act of Union, various Parliament Acts, various Electoral Reform Acts and many, many more - all these form our constitution, and are consulted by judges and politicians whenever important issues of law arise.
2) The 'rule of law' means that no individual, even a King of President, is above the law. It is a wonderful concept, even if more seen in the breach than th'observance. But it does NOT mean, or ought not to mean, that the law is above even the settled will of the people. Colonel Hogan and Eyer both talk about inalienable rights, and what 'cannot' be done to the Constitution. But the Constitution was created by, admittedly brilliant, men, at a particular time in history and for particular reasons. Not one of them would have been so arrogant as to assume that it ought to remain untouched in wildly different circumstances- hence the arrangements for amendments and 2/3 majorities and all the rest. So please, let us not speak of the Constitution as if it were the word of God or handed down on tablets from Sinai. It is a construct of its time. That does not mean we ought to tear it down on some kind of absurd principle, as some hard of thinking types think ought to be done with anything more than 50 years old. But it does mean it ought to be possible to discuss problems with it without incurring the wrath of those who see any criticism as tantamount to blasphemy.
Anyway - have at it. I am more than prepared to be shot down in flames as ignorant, socialist and all the rest. But please note, I am not suggesting a single change. That is not for me to do. I am merely suggesting that change is possible, as we see by the amendments, and that it is sometimes desirable. No constitution is perfect.
It is not my place as a foreign devil to suggest constitutional amendments in the US, and I have not done so. This is a place to discuss those and make a case for amendments you think are necessary. Guns are, of course, the prime topic at the moment, in the light of yesterday's massacre, but rather than setting up yet another thread discussing specifics, I thought this might be a place for the Board's constitutional experts and its liberals to discuss and argue issues generally.
I will make a few, more or less random, observations, based on what I have read here over the last 24 hours or so.
1) The UK does have a written constitution, of course. This is a common misnomer. It is just that our constitution is not conveniently gathered into a single place. Magna Carta, The Act of Union, various Parliament Acts, various Electoral Reform Acts and many, many more - all these form our constitution, and are consulted by judges and politicians whenever important issues of law arise.
2) The 'rule of law' means that no individual, even a King of President, is above the law. It is a wonderful concept, even if more seen in the breach than th'observance. But it does NOT mean, or ought not to mean, that the law is above even the settled will of the people. Colonel Hogan and Eyer both talk about inalienable rights, and what 'cannot' be done to the Constitution. But the Constitution was created by, admittedly brilliant, men, at a particular time in history and for particular reasons. Not one of them would have been so arrogant as to assume that it ought to remain untouched in wildly different circumstances- hence the arrangements for amendments and 2/3 majorities and all the rest. So please, let us not speak of the Constitution as if it were the word of God or handed down on tablets from Sinai. It is a construct of its time. That does not mean we ought to tear it down on some kind of absurd principle, as some hard of thinking types think ought to be done with anything more than 50 years old. But it does mean it ought to be possible to discuss problems with it without incurring the wrath of those who see any criticism as tantamount to blasphemy.
Anyway - have at it. I am more than prepared to be shot down in flames as ignorant, socialist and all the rest. But please note, I am not suggesting a single change. That is not for me to do. I am merely suggesting that change is possible, as we see by the amendments, and that it is sometimes desirable. No constitution is perfect.