Re: "Usefull languages"

Am 24.02.02, Christophe Grandsire yscrifef:

> En réponse à Padraic Brown <agricola@...>:
> > Thanks! Even though I can't agree that it's "better" than ours,
> > it's certainly an education to read through it. I like the links
> > comparing it to other constitutions around the world, so you can
> > see others' perspectives. It says pretty much everything ours
> > says, if at times more explicitly.
> >
>
> Nonsense! If your Constitution has an article against
> discrimination, call your governement, because it's
> anti-constitutional then...
Of course we don't have such an Article. It's not really
necessary, on account of other statements in the C, the
Right to Persuit of Happiness, especially. If a state
enacts an antigay employment law, rather like "Irish need
not apply" business of 100 years ago; it would be struck
down because it prevents gays from persuing happiness
through being productive citizens. _That_ sort of thing
covers all sorts of possibilities; while maintaining a
concise and streamlined document. Plus you don't have to
spell out civil rights for every little group that comes
along later demanding rights they already have.

> As for the explicitness, it's necessary to prevent misreadings.
Then you need an Article for every possible contingency.
Like, "In the Kingdom, no person of British extraction,
born to an unwed woman on the back of a lorry passing
through Picadilly Circus may be called "bastard", except
by act of Parliament." And "In the Kingdom, no person of
British extraction, born to an unwed woman on the back of
a lorry parked at Kingscross Station may be called "bastard",
except by act of Parliament."

> > 142 Articles, plus 29
> > accessory Articles is way too much detail (even considering that
> > A24-49 pertain to the King). A constitution should exist in order
> > to set the basic bounds and duties of Government - not to
> > establish the moral and ethical life of the citizenry.
>
> Well, then we have a different definition of a constitution.
Nothing wrong with that! Ours makes that statement right up
front "...in order to form a more perfect union..."

> A constitution is there to give the basic bricks of the
> society people want to build. If the constitution doesn't
> address that, I don't see the point of having it.
An interesting point. I see the "basic bricks" as something
that are already there. The C shouldn't interfere with the
kind of society people would build. The most the C should
address is the limits it places on the government so that
people _can_ build their society as they see fit.

> Instead,
> you'll have to have tons of contradicting laws that will make
> everything difficult for everyone (it's the state in France
> for instance).
I have the feeling that's the way of it _everywhere_.

> Having all the basic bricks in a single
> document is also a way to get a little less bureaucracy, as
> well as making the law easier understandable. And although
> it's not perfect, it's far easier than in most other
> countries.
I don't know. Over here, more laws (be they in the C or made
later) tend to spawn more government departments.

> > Nor should
> > it really micromanage the government from the King on down the
> > janitors.
> >
>
> At least, everyone in the government knows where his/her place is it's much
> better than having that done by tons of laws like it's done in the US.
It's just a matter of where you want to put it. If Holland wants
it all from the constitutional level,  then that's what they'll
do. We prefer all that from the local and national levels. On the
other hand, if we want the janitors to take on certain duties not
already spelled out, we don't end up in constitutional crisis.

Padraic.
--
Gwerez dah, chee gwaz vaz, ha leal.

Replies