|
Your constitution (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
That may be because Australia never became a "superpower." I think that when a country becomes the top dog militarily, it inevitably starts getting paranoid about people taking it down. This is why I sometimes wish I lived in a less powerful country. |
great britain seemed to survive their period of top-doggedness ;) though to be fair australia does have some ambiguous anti-terror laws that (imo) need a bit more "fleshing out".
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Probably because the language is so non-specific, and the founders didn't even intend "separation of church and state" to cover all levels of government. |
yeah, just like the second amendment ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
[Whether they should have intended that is another question; my answer is "yes."] :p |
Which is exactly the problem. Enshrined rights are just like the bible, they can mean almost anything they want depending on who is interpreting the rules. That said, the constitution in the US has probably saved its citizens from extra awful legislation or executive power, but really, considering how (and what) the bush admin has been able to circumvent with nifty footwork, I do wonder how much the constitution has protected you guys.
If the republicans get elected for another term this time around, well, then your citizens don’t deserve a constitution! :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN |
The ultimate arbiter of what rights get violated is mostly what the citizens will put up with, not what's in the constitution or what politicians plan to do. And that's where the U.S. can fall down at times. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
great britain seemed to survive their period of top-doggedness ;) |
Yeah, but for a long stretch of time, they were the centre of a vast empire which stretched over much of its self-affirmed "known world", spreading, among other things: disease, xenophobia, slavery, assimilation and religious persecution.
I wouldn't say Great Britain "survived" any more than I would say Rome did. That is to say, Rome technically transmitted a great deal of its culture and folkways to territories it inhabited, and some would say that it simply "moved" to Constantinople, but the Roman Empire as it was known did, technically, deteriorate.
And now look at the British Empire. One cold, little island situated in a miserable ocean, no longer the absolute crux of the western world in terms of cultural infection, forced to forfeit all of its foreign territories to a sort of new world which attempts to maintain some vestige of stomping ground respect and a sort of silent dispose for a history of intolerance. But , does the UK still make some really good chocolate oranges.
The US, as it is known, WILL crumble. Is this really obvious? Yeah, haha. But I am not saying it is due to any one tendency in particular - one need only observe history to predict the future of certain things. If there is such a thing as a future of certainty. ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Yeah, but for a long stretch of time, they were the centre of a vast empire which stretched over much of its self-affirmed "known world", spreading, among other things: disease, xenophobia, slavery, assimilation and religious persecution.
I wouldn't say Great Britain "survived" any more than I would say Rome did. That is to say, Rome technically transmitted a great deal of its culture and folkways to territories it inhabited, and some would say that it simply "moved" to Constantinople, but the Roman Empire as it was known did, technically, deteriorate.
And now look at the British Empire. One cold, little island situated in a miserable ocean, no longer the absolute crux of the western world in terms of cultural infection, forced to forfeit all of its foreign territories to a sort of new world which attempts to maintain some vestige of stomping ground respect and a sort of silent dispose for a history of intolerance. But , does the UK still make some really good chocolate oranges.
The US, as it is known, WILL crumble. Is this really obvious? Yeah, haha. But I am not saying it is due to any one tendency in particular - one need only observe history to predict the future of certain things. If there is such a thing as a future of certainty. ;) |
* - this is you.
** - this is what we're talking about :p
im not talking about empire(s), im talking about the draconian (or not) institutions and laws that permeate a decadent society, like we're seeing in the US now. as far as i know england never suspended things like habeus corpus. and, if your constitution ISNT providing protection from stuff like that (or dodgy spying operations), how useful is it really in the face of adversity? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
* - this is you.
** - this is what we're talking about :p
im not talking about empire(s), im talking about the draconian (or not) institutions and laws that permeate a decadent society, like we're seeing in the US now. as far as i know england never suspended things like habeus corpus. and, if your constitution ISNT providing protection from stuff like that (or dodgy spying operations), how useful is it really in the face of adversity? |
We're not necessarily on different levels. Ok, maybe we are, but let me bring this into your perspective; The British Empire deteriorated. That much is true. I was merely establishing that it was neither the first nor the last to go through such a thing. Now, the relevant question is: did this occur merely out of some sort of innate component to massive civilizations or was it due to governmental policy? England did not necessarily need to suspend rights, as it did not necessarily grant them as the centrepoint of its structure, as America has. But , we are seeing the 2nd generation of Bushes about to leave The White House. Further, there is yet another member of the Clinton family running to fill that position. Isn't it called a monarchy when you have consistent family leadership at every term? :stongue:
I realize the difference in what you think we are discussing, but I am asking whether or not the suspension of rights is the inevitable catalyst for downfall. Is civil turmoil, near or far, what causes revolution? Or is it the reaction; the suppression of such ideas that leads to the subversion in charismatic individuals? Further, is the eventual decline of any given superpower that which leads to reform and a progression of mandate in the first place? Yeah, I am bringing this to some fairly nebulous tangents, but ffs, The Bill And Ted of Rights supports tangential discussion, so I will partake of its allowances. |
|
|
| Audious |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
If I were to conjure up visions of a land named Caucasia, those would be the rules I would associate with it as well.
Where's the beer n' Nascar though? |
Nascar is for fools, rally is for the chariots of the gods. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
If you had to write a new constitution for your country, what sort of things would you include in it that aren't currently in there? |
The Brazilian constitution is actually quite good, enforcing the laws is the problematic part down here :p
I'd add the separation of science and the state, though, so science could regulate itself more effectively. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
We're not necessarily on different levels. Ok, maybe we are, but let me bring this into your perspective; The British Empire deteriorated. That much is true. I was merely establishing that it was neither the first nor the last to go through such a thing. |
but im not talking (at all) about deterioration. this conversation went sideways after
| quote: |
That may be because Australia never became a "superpower." I think that when a country becomes the top dog militarily, it inevitably starts getting paranoid about people taking it down |
so my response was that england lived thru her "superpower" status without enforcing draconian laws (at least, not that i know of).
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Now, the relevant question is: did this occur merely out of some sort of innate component to massive civilizations or was it due to governmental policy? |
government policy imo.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
England did not necessarily need to suspend rights, as it did not necessarily grant them as the centrepoint of its structure, as America has. |
yeah, the magna carta was just a childish scrawl! :p habeus corpus IS a core component of law in england, just because its not in a "constitution" is irrelevant (another of my points). so youre really splitting hairs (and in a not very compelling fashion :p )
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
But , we are seeing the 2nd generation of Bushes about to leave The White House. Further, there is yet another member of the Clinton family running to fill that position. Isn't it called a monarchy when you have consistent family leadership at every term? :stongue: |
yeah, well that certainly is a worry! that said though, i thought bill was quite a good president.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I realize the difference in what you think we are discussing, but I am asking whether or not the suspension of rights is the inevitable catalyst for downfall. |
no, not at all. it is merely a period of transition from "good" superpower to "evil" superpower. same as anakin turned his back on the sith in jedi, so too can the US turn its back on the bush admin's more dodgy changes before any "downfall" occurs. the great beauty of the liberal democracy. until a government attempts to fundamentally alter things like elections, free press, free speech, free judiciary etc, i dont see transient laws to be as much of a problem as th raving left seem to think. the US got through nixon and hoover etc, it will get through the war on terror and the patriot act too.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Is civil turmoil, near or far, what causes revolution? Or is it the reaction; the suppression of such ideas that leads to the subversion in charismatic individuals? Further, is the eventual decline of any given superpower that which leads to reform and a progression of mandate in the first place? Yeah, I am bringing this to some fairly nebulous tangents, but ffs, The Bill And Ted of Rights supports tangential discussion, so I will partake of its allowances. |
man, if i hadnt quit pot that might make some sense :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
This is why I sometimes wish I lived in a less powerful country. |
How about...
? :D |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
If you had to write a new constitution for your country, what sort of things would you include in it that aren't currently in there? |
First, I'de require a strict restriction of government to the roles of protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as enforcing contracts. Additionally, I'de put in an amendment whereby no government agency is able to legislate morality or anything else which is outside the scope of the previous 4 clauses I mentioned in my first sentence. I'de take away the "personhood" rights of corporations because they are not people, and they should not have the rights of "persons". Voting for elected officials would be mandatory and only based on popular majority. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Voting for elected officials would be mandatory and only based on popular majority. |
Be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Be careful what you wish for. |
why? mandatory voting is awesome. |
|
|
|
|
