Rules are the same as last week (even if I did not always abide by the explaining rule). This weeks topic is;
Rule of Law: Basis of authority.

The question I am asking is, what is the best form of governmental law... or in different terms how should a government excersize it's authority over it's people. Should there be a written constitution, enshrining the fundementals of law binding all subsequent generation? Should law be determined without any guidlines, by a congress or executive leader? The options are limitless, so let's hear you opinions.

Personally I am a firm believer in Constitutionalism. I think there needs to be a firm law, outlining the basic rules of government and rights of the people. Of course statutory law should be developed within the congress and be due to change. Without a "supreme law" or document the government is going to be prone to consistent abuses of it's citizens and the government it's self would be unsustainable. To easily would one person or group of people be able to rise to the top and gain control that they would not readily cede.

Because we cannot trust a government to treat it's subjects with deserved dignity, nor can we trust individuals to not usurp ultimate authority from the government, thereby creating a dictatorship. Therefore the rules and guidlines limiting and granting governmental power must, ultimately, be enshrined within a constitution.

Rebuttal?

I would beleive in the constitution if anyone else did. However, I think beating the fuck out of people is much more productive then jail time.

So, you propose rule of the jungle in which laws are not explicit, but if folkways are not followed one faces punishment from the injured or offended parties?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fascistsmasher:
So, you propose rule of the jungle in which laws are not explicit, but if folkways are not followed one faces punishment from the injured or offended parties?

---

I beleive in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which is what I think you said, but I'm not sure .

The American constitutional system is inherently flawed given the ability of Congress to change the constitution itself (if I'm not mistaken). In Australia however, the Constitution can only be changed through referendum, requiring a double majority of both states approving the change and a majority of the population approving the change. Those governing should never be able to change the laws which limit the power of the governors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slurm:
The American constitutional system is inherently flawed given the ability of Congress to change the constitution itself (if I'm not mistaken). In Australia however, the Constitution can only be changed through referendum, requiring a double majority of both states approving the change and a majority of the population approving the change. Those governing should never be able to change the laws which limit the power of the governors.

---

They can't change the actual document, but add to it. Amendments can also be nulled out by later ones, though, for the ban of alcohol (18th, I think) amendment was voided by the next amendment, which, I believe, was the 19th.

Also, I don't think that congress would completely change the amendments around, because that would just piss off the constituents, therefore, creating a completely new congress next voting time.

I agree with Fascistsmasher. Constitutions are a good idea. It seems to create a more sound nation in all aspects.

No first it has to be approved by congress and then it goes to a referendum. If 2/3 of the stats agree its an amendment.

As outlined by the constitution itself the American constitution is actually quite difficult to change (in fact, it's one of the hardest in the world to modify). There are different ways for this to be done and two seperate levels which it must go through. Initially it has to be proposed to the states for ratification. The most used way of doing this is for an amendment to obtain a super-majority (66 percent) of both houses (the House of Representatives and the US Senate). The second way to do this has only been used once and that was when the constitution was originally presented, this is for a Constitutional convention to be called. The states each send representatives to the convention and the convention is then used to draft and propose amendments to the states (again, I believe, requiring the "super majority").

The second step in the process is for the states to ratify or reject the proposed amendments... again there are two ways of doing this. The first way is for 75 percent of the state legislature to accept the proposed amendment, in which case the amendment becomes part of the constitution (succesfully used 16 times). The second way is for the states to call special ratifying conventions, if 75 percent of the ratifying conventions the amendment is then, again, succesfully adopted (used once, the 21st amendment).

As you can see it's actually quite difficult to change the constitution (as it should be) because the constitution lays down the fundemental laws of the nation. To date only 27 amendments have been succesfully ratified, not counting the original ten amendments that makes seventeen. Over a span of roughly 220 years I would say thats pretty stable.

Now each individual state has it's own state constitution and usually these are much less stable. Take Texas for example, it's constitution is 80000 or so words long and contains over 400 amendments... this is the seventh constituion. The Federal constitution (for a reference point) is a mere 3000 words long and has been in effect since the collapse of the articles of confederation.

Using the US example one could say that, by far, constitutional governments are superior to other forms. However, there is a caution here. The US constitution is actually a rare example as most constitutions are changed every few decades, summarily ignored and overly complex (often including statutory laws). France for example has had five seperate constitutions and the Brazilian constitutions call for everyone to have a house has been ruled as an "Ideal" and not law thereby making an arguement that their entire constitution is an "Ideal" and not law. While constitutions are important the must also be difficult to change and contain only the fundemental principles of the government. Otherwise they end up being nothing more than a useless piece of paper.

any constitutional system which prevented threads like this being concieved of. seriously this thread is shockingly dry.

back to the topic, no i don't agree. a constitutional system is open to abuse, far better to have proportionally elected legislators, who decide on laws and a truly independant judiciary. a constitution means you end up arguing about what a sentence means rather than the actual issue and the factors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:
any constitutional system which prevented threads like this being concieved of. seriously this thread is shockingly dry.

back to the topic, no i don't agree. a constitutional system is open to abuse, far better to have proportionally elected legislators, who decide on laws and a truly independant judiciary. a constitution means you end up arguing about what a sentence means rather than the actual issue and the factors.

---

So every time a new government is voted in, they get to change all the laws if they wish? Have fun.

Shockingly dry? Yea, I get called that a lot What real issues get ignored because we are busy arguing about a constitutional sentence? The issues that typically get ignored are ignored for a reason, because those in power do not want the issue addressed. I find it funny the the "ports deal" was larger news than the continuing Katrina debocle, disturbingly this "controversy" also distracted the public from issues like warrantless wiretapping.

Again constitutions should not go into the realm of statutory law (Who can marry who is an example of statutory law). The constitution should lay a power map (what branch of government has what power), it should set the fundementals of government (how offices are filled) and should lay out, in law, the basic rights and liberties of the people (like the US Bill of Rights). Constitutions are about protections and fundementals... whats wrong with that?

The executive branch should be able to make the laws. We should have a true democracy. We elect someone and he can do whatever he wants without worrying about a vague piece of paper written a long time ago that bears no relevance to what he wants to do. We should have a branch that has direct control of the military to prevent the executive power from taking total control. The executive power should be able to do whatever he wants if he is elected. He should be able to write the Constitution. Bush would do a great job . That is true power to the people, giving the elected official more power because he is elected (key word: elected). FascistSmasher knows more about my ideals from other threds which I don't feel like explaining here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzball3000:
The executive branch should be able to make the laws. We should have a true democracy. We elect someone and he can do whatever he wants without worrying about a vague piece of paper written a long time ago that bears no relevance to what he wants to do. We should have a branch that has direct control of the military to prevent the executive power from taking total control. The executive power should be able to do whatever he wants if he is elected. He should be able to write the Constitution. Bush would do a great job . That is true power to the people, giving the elected official more power because he is elected (key word: elected). FascistSmasher knows more about my ideals from other threds which I don't feel like explaining here.

---

Saddam Hussein was elected with a dramatical 99.9% majority vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzball3000:
The executive branch should be able to make the laws. We should have a true democracy. We elect someone and he can do whatever he wants without worrying about a vague piece of paper written a long time ago that bears no relevance to what he wants to do. We should have a branch that has direct control of the military to prevent the executive power from taking total control. The executive power should be able to do whatever he wants if he is elected. He should be able to write the Constitution. Bush would do a great job . That is true power to the people, giving the elected official more power because he is elected (key word: elected). FascistSmasher knows more about my ideals from other threds which I don't feel like explaining here.

---

You are so far away from reality that your posts now are laughable in their absurdity.

Bush himself lied that he would abide by the protections afforded in the constitution but instead he broke the law by using warrantless wire taps on US citizens -and yet you take up for him.

Upon Bush's re-election he hailed it as a mandate and he bragged that it was political capitol and he was going to use it.

Now his ratings are the lowest evah and even his Repug party have distanced itself from his stoopid ideas and crimes.

Operation Swarmer was/is an political operation media show that was desperately launched to shore up Bush's chaotic handling of the war in an attempt to bolster his falling approval numbers.

The medicaire overhaul bill does little if anything to help the people Bush said it would help - so that is another Bush lie.

What is it that you find about Bush that merits your praise for him? Is it because your daddy is a Bush ass kisser? Is that all it is?

Put out some effort at least to think for your self and stop posting crap here.

Fuck guy, read something and base your posts on some kind of evidence instead of coming off as an ignorant, ass kissing, rich, Repug that cannot see past the lies that Bush and your daddy are spreading.

And look at this(from the TV show Boston Legal about a woman that refused to pay her taxes) - It is better when you watch the video, It is the second link at the bottom of the transcript:

Alan Shore's closing argument


Alan Shore: When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice.

Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.

Stop for a second and try to fathom that.

At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed?

*Alan sits down abruptly in the witness chair next to the judge*

Judge Robert Sanders: Mr. Shore. That's a chair for witnesses only.

Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.

Judge Sanders: Please get out of the chair.

Alan: Actually, I'm sick and tired.

Judge Sanders: Get out of the chair!

Alan: And what I'm most sick and tired of is how every time somebody disagrees with how the government is running things, he or she is labeled unAmerican.

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Evidentally, it's speech time.

Alan: And speech in this country is free, you hack! Free for me, free for you. Free for Melissa Hughes to stand up to her government and say "Stick it"!

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Objection!

Alan: I object to government abusing its power to squash the constitutional freedoms of its citizenry. And, God forbid, anybody challenge it. They're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American!

Judge Sanders: Mr. Shore. Unless you have anything new and fresh to say, please sit down. You've breached the decorum of my courtroom with all this hooting.

Alan: Last night, I went to bed with a book. Not as much fun as a 29 year old, but the book contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The year was 1952. He said, "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism."

Today, it's the cloak of anti-terrorism. Stevenson also remarked, "It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."

I know we are all afraid, but the Bill of Rights - we have to live up to that. We simply must. That's all Melissa Hughes was trying to say. She was speaking for you. I would ask you now to go back to that room and speak for her.
http://www.boston-legal.org/19-stickit/ep19-stickit.shtml#dialogue

Here is the link to the video

"The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism."

Adlai Stevenson
1952

1952 --- Think McCarthyism

Hacker, this is a civil debate and I request that you refrain from personal attacks.

Fuzz actually makes a good point though, one that many of you are overlooking. There is no actual need for a constitution is one has good leaders and a balance within the government. Such is the case with Britain, which doesn't rely upon one single document but thousands of documents and centuries of precedent. Unfortunately, and my main arguement for a constitution, without written rules of government there is no power map and therefore no seperation of powers or checks and balances. What you would essentially get is a dictatorship because there wouldn't even be a legally enshrined reason for having any kind of representation.

Another note, we need to begin looking past Bush and toward the true sources of the problems we currently face. One is a fully funded (by tax-payer dollars) yet completely unaccountable organization which operates entirely in secret (the NSA). Another is the man behind the president Karl Rove, a man that has tremendous influence and could easily follow republicans from administration to administration imposing his formidable will. Then we have a legislative branch that is so worried about reelection that they will almost never take action on important "hot" issues. This causes the supreme court to take a role that many conservatives decry... yet, if they don't take care of it, who will? We also have an executive that can essentially rule by decree through executive order.

There is so much that is wrong with the system itself, Bush is just the current face. You need to stop focusing on "evil" Bush and start talking about the real problems that plague our nation. Bush, essentially, is a figurehead and nothing more. Yes he does have immense power, but unless he is told to use it, he won't.

Despite your pseudo-intellectual shenanigans, this thread still sucks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Despite your pseudo-intellectual shenanigans, this thread still sucks.

---

Thanks for your contribution, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.