Text 6507, 115 rader
Skriven 2010-03-31 21:03:10 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
   Kommentar till text 6454 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Hello Bob,

>MVDV>Here the last one to judge is the senate. If the senate judges a
>MVDV>law in violation, it will not pass it. Once it is passed the
>MVDV>senate, the violation is just an opinion.

>RB>So there is nothing to prevent an unconstitutional law from being
>RB>passed and enforced?

>MV>Just as there is nothing stopping you from going north of the North
>MV>Pole.

RB>Which is about the stupidest answer I've seen here in a long time.

All one has to do is jump up and down when standing on the North Pole.
That is due north, is it not?

>DS>What if they pass a law that is in contradiction to your
>DS>constitution or other laws?  What then?

>RB>My point exactly. I can't imagine there are really no checks on
>RB>unconstitutional laws in the NL either, although that appears to be
>RB>what Michiel is saying.

>MV>There are checks and balances.

RB>So tell us about them, for pete's sake! You complain about
RB>other systems and don't say why you think the one at home
RB>is superior or even equivalent.

There are no checks and balances.  For example, the Cybersecurity Act
of 2009 allows the Secretary of Commerce to investigate "all relevant
data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law,
regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access".  What that means
is anything you say, do or write can and will be used against you in
court of law, and there is absolutely nothing you or anybody else can
do about it.

>MV>What I am saying is that the "Hoge Raad" is not part of that system of
>MV>checks and balances.

RB>OK, so what is? Why not answer Dale's question?

GWB was right.  The Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper."
Dale might not like, or want, to admit it.  But it's true.

>RB>Or does the NL not have a constitution? I can't imagine that either.

>MV>Why not? There are many countries that do not have a constitution.

RB>Name a few.

Israel and Great Britain come to mind.

RB>Democratic ones, naturally.

If you consider Israel as being a theocracy rather than a democracy,
that leaves only Great Britain.  And some question whether Great Britain
is, or ever was, a democracy.

RB>And don't try to weasel out by claiming - for example - that
RB>Germany only has a "Grundgesetz", but not something actually called
RB>a "constitution". The purpose is important, not the name.

Germany has never been a true democracy.  And after WWII, we are
the ones who wrote their "constitution", or rather forced the German
people to write one to our liking.  This can most easily be seen by
noting the fact that Germany uses a federalist system, much like
the USA.

>MV>It is not the only way to run a country.

RB>What would you suggest otherwise, if there are no ground
RB>rules? Naturally a dictatorship is possible, but I thought
RB>we were talking about democracies.

Democracy is mob rule.  Vigilantes rule the day.  In the USA, we
have a federalist system with a republican form of government.  That
is not the same as being a true democracy.

>MV>The Netherlands has a constitution. But it is not the same as that of
>MV>the USA.

RB>So it does, but it doesn't. And when asked, you won't explain.

No two constitutions are the same.

>RB>This is a very confused discussion.

>MV>It would be for someone who thinks every constitution is like that of
>MV>the USA.

RB>Bullshit. You're just trying to muddy the waters. And I'm
RB>getting the impression you're grinning while you're doing
RB>that.

Post-WWII the USA had a hell of lot of influence on how certain
countries wrote their "consititutions" and what those "constitutions"
consisted of.

But let's not get stuck on WWII and its aftermath.
Look at Afghanistan after the USA invaded.
Look at Iraq after the USA invaded.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq have different constitutions
today than what they had before.
Do you think we would have allowed them to write a constitution
that is not to our liking?

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * "How sweet it is!" - Jackie Gleason

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Not the Eastern Star feedcutting centre (3:800/432)