Utopia Talk / Politics / Reading of the Constitution in Congress

Rugian Member	Sun Jan 09 17:56:35 "The reading was interrupted when the clock hit 11:31. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) was reading from Article II, Section 1, the mandate that only a "natural-born citizen" may be elected president, when a woman rose in the public gallery and shouted: "Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us, Jesus! My name is Theresa . . .�" Before the "birther" could say her surname, she was removed by police guards." http://www...807_2.html?sid=ST2011010603624
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 09 18:27:02 When are people going to learn to mind their manners?
ehcks Member	Sun Jan 09 18:29:27 Well, manners and tact would be great.. But so would not being so dumb as to think Hawaii wasn't a part of the United States on August 4, 1961.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 09 18:34:46 Oh, seriously, they didn't actually go through with that did they?
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 09 18:43:41 The Reading or the birther disrupting The Reading? Yes to both.
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 09 19:20:04 Hawaii has been a part of the United States since the Annexation Act in the late 1800's.
river of blood Member	Sun Jan 09 19:26:34 Everyone in that building should be a constitutional scholar, but they have to read the constitution to them? We're in one serious fucking mess.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 09 19:43:49 Aeros, but they did not become a State until 1959.
ehcks Member	Sun Jan 09 20:05:47 Guam isn't a US state, but if you're born there to people who live there, you are a naturally born citizen.
ehcks Member	Sun Jan 09 20:06:24 Of the United States, of course. Need an Edit button!
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 09 21:05:48 I checked and Aeros is correct. Anyone born after August 12, 1898 are citizens of The United States.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 09 21:37:47 Hot Rod: The first. It seems utterly camp to me, and psuedo religious. Similar behaviour back home would ring massive alarm bells for me: Quack alert, do not vote for!
garyd Member	Sun Jan 09 21:48:39 Different country SEB. You don't even have a constituion per se. And trying to standup and read 600 years of English common law would leave you much time left to do anything else. The constitutionon the other hand - wouldn't even require a speed reader to get through it and the Bill of Rights.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 09 22:02:09 garyd: "You don't even have a constituion per se." Common misconception. There are several documents you could pick that would fulfil the same function. "And trying to standup and read 600 years of English common law" Isn't the problem with the concept in the first place. I did actually in the first draft put Erksine May, or the Act of Settlement or Bill of Rights, but given half of you wouldn't know what the first was, the significance of the second, and would assume the third referred to the US, I deleted it. It's not the time, it's the quasi religious overtones: And now, a reading of the Gospel according to the Founding Fathers. Interesting to see the bits on slavery were omitted, perhaps because they undermine the idea of constitutive fundamentalism?
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 09 22:17:55 Seb, when it becomes obvious that a majority of The Congress has lost interest in The Constitution it behooves the minority to remind them of what it is all about.
garyd Member	Sun Jan 09 22:20:51 Actually the bits on slavery were there to limit the representation of slave holders...
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 09 22:24:24 Seb - "And trying to standup and read 600 years of English common law" How about The Magna Carta? If you replace the term monarch's authority with state's authority wouldn't you have the makings of a Sacred Document that outlines your Freedoms?
garyd Member	Sun Jan 09 22:24:41 And it's the supreme law of the land much abused though it may be.
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 09 22:43:02 "How about The Magna Carta?" Magna Carta was a power grab by the Nobility against the King. It prevented the establishment of an Absolute Monarchy in England, but its purpose was not liberal. It was to preserve the power of the landed gentry. The fun thing about England is that the country has no Governing document. Their entire system is based on "Well, this is how we've ALWAYS done it".
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 09 23:05:20 I know what the Magna Carta is, I'm just not sure how much respect it get from The English people.
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 00:00:15 "Oh, seriously, they didn't actually go through with that did they?" We all know the republicans love meaningless theater. What did they do after reading the constitution? Promptly break it by conducting house business (including voting) without being sworn in as the constitution requires: http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202160-1.html Sessions' Blunder Puts Brakes on House Work House Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) abruptly adjourned a hearing on a GOP health care repeal bill Thursday after he became aware that Rep. Pete Sessions was not sworn in as a Member of the 112th Congress, committee spokeswoman Jo Maney said. The Texas Republican was not on the floor during Wednesday's swearing-in ceremony, and neither was incoming freshman Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.). Under the Constitution, which was read on the House floor Thursday, only sworn Members of Congress are allowed to conduct official business, but Sessions and Fitzpatrick have already voted eight times in the 112th Congress. While it was previously thought that Sessions had introduced the motion to create the rules for the Rules Committee, Maney said it was later determined that Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) was the Member who offered the package. Dreier is consulting with the parliamentarian about how to best craft a unanimous consent agreement to rectify the situation, Maney said. "We should have an agreement shortly," she said. It's unclear whether Democrats will allow a unanimous consent agreement to go forward and Democratic aides pounced on the Republicans' blunder. "Despite the fact that they read the Constitution today, they should have read it yesterday, actually," one senior Democratic aide said. "I guess swearing in their Members wasn't part of their pledge." Sessions, who is a member of the Rules Committee, stated the oath publicly in the Capitol but was not on the House floor, according to his spokeswoman, Emily Davis. "To ensure that all constitutional and House requirements are fulfilled, Congressman Sessions officially took the oath of office this afternoon from the House floor. Public records and votes will be adjusted accordingly," Davis said in an e-mail Thursday. Fitzpatrick has served in the House before: He was elected in 2004 but lost his Pennsylvania seat two years later to Democrat Patrick Murphy. He then defeated Murphy in November.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 10 00:03:59 I'm glad you have a total lack of respect for rules Hellfire. But you have to be sworn in to serve in Congress.
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 00:05:17 wah? wtf are you talking about me having a total lack of respect for the rules?!?!
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 10 00:11:25 I think the question is, do the democrats want to waste the Houses time? If they swear in the two miscreants today will that change the outcome of the votes on whatever has been voted on if they have a redu next week?
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 00:13:35 "I think the question is, do the democrats want to waste the Houses time? " You mean like reading the whole constitution and then promptly not following it? Got it. moron.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 10 00:17:08 "wah? wtf are you talking about me having a total lack of respect for the rules?!?!" It's called... ...I misread your statement. Oops :p
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 10 00:24:09 Hellfir, two reps screwed up and for some ungodly reason missed the swearing in. That has nothing to do with The Constitution other than two reps screwed up royally.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 10 00:26:33 "and for some ungodly reason missed the swearing in." And on top of that they doubly screwed up by voting on some stuff they were not allowed to. It was not the entire republican contingent.
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 00:31:29 "Hellfir, two reps screwed up and for some ungodly reason missed the swearing in." You want to know why they missed it? They were breaking House Ethics rules by holding a fundraiser in the capital http://sun...-on-first-day-of-new-congress/ Two House Republican members, Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick and Pete Sessions, missed their swearing in on Wednesday as they attended a fundraiser in Fitzpatrick's honor at the U.S. Capitol. These two not-quite-yet Congressmen then voted on legislation and introduced bills, adding a Dadaist element to the proceedings. Although astonishingly surreal, thereâ??s a serious House Rules-related concern: lawmakers are barred from using official resources for campaign or fundraising activities. "House rooms and offices are not to be used for events that are campaign or political in nature, such as a meeting on campaign strategy, or a reception for campaign contributors," according to the House Ethics Manual. The Ethics Manual identifies an exception -- "when a Member is sworn in, the Member may hold a 'swearing-in' reception in a House office building that is paid for with campaign funds" -- but the event was a fundraiser, not merely a simple â??swearing-inâ?? ceremony. A spokesman for Fitzpatrick told the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim that the event was not a fundraiser and that anyone could attend. The information available shows that the invite was a solicitation for campaign funds and was very different from other lawmaker invites for celebrations held in official House offices and buildings. The invite says that it is an invitation to "Mike's Swearing In Celebration" and asks for at least $30 per person. The money appears to be for the bus trip to DC and entry to the celebration. The money, of course, goes to Rep. Fitzpatrickâ??s campaign account, is accompanied by a FEC disclaimer, and is solicited in whatever amount the donor chooses to give--contributors could select amounts ranging from $30 to $120 or more. Other lawmakers held celebrations on Capitol Hill that did not include solicitations for money in their invitations. Dan Boren, Sean Duffy, Bill Huizenga, Reid Ribble, and Roy Blunt all held swearing in receptions in congressional offices that did not include an ask for campaign contributions. Blunt also held an event at the Library of Congress that did not solicit money. The problem of holding events in the U.S. Capitol (i.e., the Capitol Visitors Center) for political or campaign activities is explained in the House Ethics Manual: they â??are supported with official funds and hence are considered official resources." While Fitzpatrick appears to have violated House ethics rules, Sessions deserves special attention for reserving the room for Fitzpatrick. This may not violate any rules, but as a member of the Rules Committee, he should know better! Of course, he shouldnâ??t have voted before he was sworn in, either. The Office of Congressional Ethics and the House Ethics Committee should determine whether or not this type of activity is in violation of the House Ethics rules. From this end, it appears as though this fundraiser was not in meeting with the rules as laid out in the manual. ----------------------------- "That has nothing to do with The Constitution other than two reps screwed up royally. " http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/07/2005554/missing-congressmen-take-oath.html House parliamentarians took a pretty dim view of the two being AWOL â?? the Constitution, ironically read Thursday on the House floor, calls for the oath being taken in person. ------------------------------- What do you mean it has nothing to do with the constitution when they act on House business without being sworn in as required in the constitution?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 10 00:38:11 "That has nothing to do with the reading of The Constitution other than two reps screwed up royally." FIXED. Then they should be sworn in, charged with an ethics violation and the democrats would need to make their decision.
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 00:54:16 "That has nothing to do with the reading of The Constitution other than two reps screwed up royally." Sure it does. The republicans are in control of the house and they let two people vote who were never sworn in, as required by the constitution, right after reading the constitution. It's downright pathetic that they sit there reading the constitution on the tax payer's time then can't even follow it for 48 hours.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 10 01:05:22 "It's downright pathetic that they sit there reading the constitution on the tax payer's time" As opposed to having Stephen Colbert crack some shitty jokes about illegals? There are plenty of more worthless things that Congress could have been doing than this. Especially since it's likely some of them probably would have learned something fundamental about their jobs if they had listened closely.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 10 06:38:01 HF - The republicans are in control of the house and they let two people vote who were never sworn in, as required by the constitution, right after reading the constitution. You can't stop someone from doing something if you are unaware of their situation. If you could, there would be no violence in the world except preventative violence. In other words, no one knew those two congressmen had screwed up. Why would they be stopped from voting if no one knew they had missed the swearing in ceremony?
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 11:46:11 " Why would they be stopped from voting if no one knew they had missed the swearing in ceremony? " As leaders of the house it's their job to make sure everyone voting is eligible to vote, if that means taking attendance for the swearing in ceremony, that was their responsibility. The buck stops at House leadership which in this case is the Republicans.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 10 12:03:43 Hot Rod just shakes his head and walks away.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 12:10:36 I hope he doesnt let the door hit his ass on the way out.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 13:34:51 Hot Rod: "How about The Magna Carta?" Another good example, though mostly superceded and erm, probably not the best document to actually read looking for principles, most of them are actually very feudalistic. It's position as an important establishment of the idea that (some) people do have rights and that nobody can be above the law is deserved in the history of English (and descendent) legal systems, but it's definitely not a finished work. If you really want to get a sense of the reality of the situation, it would probably make sense to read out the several issues of magna carta in order, the English Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and the various versions of the Constitution... clear evidence of a gradual evolution of the legal and rights framework, and put paid to this rigidly fundamentalist nonsense.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 13:55:08 Europe doesnt hold historical, politicial documents up to religious levels. Europeans know their societies develop and some norms become old, bigoted opinions, in time.
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jan 10 13:56:53 Europe has a history of dictatorships, tyrants and persecution. America doesn't because of the constitution. Sure it isn't a religious document but it is what has made our country the single country in the world that has never been ruled by a tyrant and has always had a republic form of government.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 10 14:00:34 "and put paid to this rigidly fundamentalist nonsense." It's not fundamentalist nonsense when the Constitution is still the supreme governing body of the land. The Magna Carta is not. It'd be one thing if people said that the Constitution is perfect and should never ever ever be changed. But no one says that. Instead, they encourage adherence to the Constitution because of an increasing perception that it is being effectively ignored. That's not a trivial matter. If there is a public perception that the law is not being followed, then the citizenry gradually will lose faith in our entire legal system. Fidelity to the Constitution (while acknowledging that it can still be changed via amendments) is therefore sound policy, not "fundamentalist nonsense."
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:00:57 dumbass. America is one single country. Europe today is far more peaceful than the USA.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:01:32 "Sure it isn't a religious document but it is what has made our country the single country in the world that has never been ruled by a tyrant" its also one of the youngest lol...
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jan 10 14:04:56 What does it's age have to do with anything? The constitution you want to dismiss makes it near impossible for a tyrant to arise legally. Only through civil war that effectively destroys the constitution would that happen. But as Americans adhere the constitution any would be strongman would have a significant uphill climb to succeed in that. All thanks to our constitution.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:12:34 Because its age dumbass means it hardly has any history. If it had been a densely populated regions of states for a thousand years like europe, it would have had a history of warfare just like Europe. There are European countries that haven been ruled by a dictator for the last few centuries as well. European legislation makes it just as impossible without religiously worshiped old documents that keep us bigoted. Listen, theres no debating that you dont have to go further back than to the 50's and racial segregation in the USA to realize morals become outdated and bigoted. You're so naive.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:13:21 There are European countries that haven been ruled by a dictator for the last few centuries as well. = There are European countries that havent been ruled by a dictator for the last few centuries either.
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jan 10 14:15:35 you seem to be missing the point that so long as America adheres to the constitution, America will never have a dictator. Other countries do not have documents that stop the government from growing into the personal lives of the people. America does. That is the constitution. That is why American's respect and adore it. The generation that universally ignores the constitution is the generation that causes America's collapse. And no, America is not there yet. We were damn close though.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:17:22 go back 150 years and we were publicly executing people in squares like Iran. Go back another century and we were chopping off hands and burning women. Go back another century, to before the USA existed and the countries of the modern world were densely filled with villages that attacked and pillaged each other. Go back another century etc...
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:19:51 "you seem to be missing the point that so long as America adheres to the constitution, America will never have a dictator. " You seem to be missing th point that europe doesnt have dictators either, without holy documents. "Other countries do not have documents that stop the government from growing into the personal lives of the people. " Of course they fucking do. Youre so ignorant of the world beyond the mall. USA is not even ranked #1 in freedom anyway, so you can drop the constitution = greatest freedom in the world act. You guys need to get outside your borders and see what the world actually looks like out there.
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jan 10 14:22:45 What does public executions have to do with dictatorships? And what does the british colonies before the foundings of the United States have to do with the United States? Your argument is so widely unfocused. You are basically arguing for no other reason except to argue. And no, countries like France, UK, Germany etc can have ever growing governments that infringe on personal rights. This is why France can ban burka's for no other reason than simple fear. That wouldn't fly in America. Because of the constitution.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 14:23:28 Mexicantornado: Ironic, then, that Europes history of dictatorships normally starts with an amendment to a constitution. I'd argue that modern dictatorships are enabled by centralising legal authority in a single document and then confusing it with moral authority. Look at the history of Europes dictators, and normally the first thing they claim to be doing is standing up for the people against the establishment and foreign influence, the next thing they do after obtaining power is to write a document to prove that it is so, and point to to justify that everything they are doing is above board. One of the reasons England and Britain has avoided any incidents like that domestically since the Civil war and Glorious Revolution is that such authority is not in any way concentrated and hijackable as a power base. Rugian: "It's not fundamentalist nonsense when the Constitution is still the supreme governing body of the land." It looks to me very much like it is. The fact that the constitution first enshrined slavery is a classic example that the answers can not all be found in the intentions of the founding fathers or strict interpretation of the constitution as presently worded. You may not cleave to this, but it would be ridiculous to claim that a growing number of people do subscribe to this idea, and that is one of the main drivers for the tea party constitutional readings around the country and finally in congress. Societies norms and ethics change with time, the strength of the system is careful and considered debate over what changes are necessary and how to implement them. Certainly, that is the main strength of the constitution. Simply shouting "It's not the founding fathers intention" or "It's not in the constitution" or even "it is in the constitution and amending it will take away my rights" doesn't strike me as a reasonable response to the presures of a changing society. Nor am I any longer convinced (though I used to be) that a built in bias towards the status quo necesarily serves us well as the pace of change driven by technology has outpaced the natural conservatism of society as a whole (peoples idea of what is "right" and "normal" vary, and so societies ability to accept new ideas can be rather lagerdly). Technology is empowering individuals in ways and at speeds that are frankly unimaginable to someone in the 1700's. Peoples rights are going to run up against each other more and more as that happens, necesitating state interference to bensure maximum liberty (that's why we have states in the first place after all). And it's not impossible at all to imagine a world where the current concept of a nation state itself ceases to be a viable method of geo-poltiical organisation. Fidelity to the constituion appears to mean something widely divergent to "a method for resolving cultural conflicts", rather people seem to be looking to the content of the constitution for the solution itself. It's that which smacks of fundamentalism to me.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:27:36 "What does public executions have to do with dictatorships? " Lol... "And what does the british colonies before the foundings of the United States have to do with the United States? " Lol...wtf are you taking about. You're comparing wartime history when Europe has been a densely packed region of states for a thousand years, while the USA was empty until a few centuries when europeans went to an almost deserted massive area without having to compete with a mass of equally advanced military competitors everywhere around you. "And no, countries like France, UK, Germany etc can have ever growing governments that infringe on personal rights. " Not any more than the USA. "This is why France can ban burka's for no other reason than simple fear." And the constitution allowed racial segregation in the USA until 50 years ago. Point?
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:29:02 The constitution allowed Bush to start a war that left several hundred thousand innocents dead, feels just like yesterday.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 10 14:29:44 "And the constitution allowed racial segregation in the USA until 50 years ago. Point? " we shouldnt have tried to fix what was not broken.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 10 14:33:05 Seb, Will reply later. My employers would be angry if I spent the time to respond to a full-length Sebpost.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:34:00 We should get payed essay fees for responding to Seb.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 14:34:38 MexicanTornado: "And no, countries like France, UK, Germany etc" Firstly, this is totally incorrect. The Weimar republic had a constitution that was largely written by Americans based on the US system of Government. Yet, tada, Hitler. If the political circumstances are correct, the constitution is no saviour at all. Indeed, there was talk of a coup in America during the depression era. If you look at the rise of the dictators and tyrannies, nearly ALL the big ones (Though not Japan) have grown out of violent revolutions against the status quo rather than gradual encroachments of government on the people. Almost all have started from situations with a strong constitutional government, and post revolution, most cemented their power using similar strong constiutional documents like the US (often with similar principles). What the US has benefited from is a strong institutional and cultural sense of what is good and what is bad government, which I would guess goes back to before the revolution (given what prompted the revolution was the feeling that the rights of Englishmen won at the end of the glorious revolution were being abrogated by the crown in the colonies). In that sense, obsessing over the constitution seems a distraction, and precisly what got most of the 19th and 20th century dicatorships in Europe into the mess they got into. France, by the way, bans the Burka becuase they see the Burka as a cultural enforcement that attacks the liberties of the women that are coerced directly or indirectly to wear it. It is, in short, a legal obligation flowing from their constitution for the government to actively protect the rights of the women. The Burka ban is based entirely on a framework and understanding of rights that is very common in the civil code systems where it is the role of the state to actively guarantee individual rights. To suggest the burka ban is because France lacks a constitution the guarantees rights is to entirely misunderstand ... just about everything. Nor, the Burka ban is also being contested as a breach of the European Human Rights act, a further set of strong rights that all EU countries subscribe to. In many ways, this parallels your own constitutional framework.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 14:35:45 Seriosuly, five paragraphs is an essay? What DO they teach you over there...
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 14:36:12 Rugian: Fair point. The benefits of accademia, I can work flexitime.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 10 14:36:25 Seb: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/five_par.htm
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 14:37:15 I come here to sling out superficial comments to get away from writing essay-style.
chen Member	Mon Jan 10 14:40:24 Seb what branch of science are you in? Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Engineering?
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 14:46:51 Physics.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 14:47:12 (we don't normally get to write essays...)
chen Member	Mon Jan 10 14:48:04 Ah, too bad, was hoping you were a Chemistry man.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 14:51:53 Depends what you need to know... I remember a bit of chemistry and there is some overlap on the atomic side.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 15:47:55 So mexitornado, what do you say to the fact that the USA has a long list of banning civil liberties, suffrage etc, for centuries, despite the constitution? Do you pause and question your pov at all in the light of that?
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jan 10 16:55:16 nope.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 16:57:11 But, I mean, you cant refute that your arguments were disproven? You just refuse to on principle?
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jan 10 16:59:33 My overall point is that America has no history of a dictatorship, by holding up he constitution in reverence America never will. It is when people follow your logic and say the constitution should be amended easier or is outdated, when the rule of law is no longer imperative, is when dictatorships arise. And no, The weimer republic obviously didn't have the history of America at all & to compare Hitler's rise as to be somehow possible in America during the great depression is absurd.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 17:05:57 "& to compare Hitler's rise as to be somehow possible in America " Moron, I havent, but the fact is, you're well on the way with the teabaggers.
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jan 10 17:12:42 Right, because a political movement that demands a smaller and limited government somehow translate to nazism? Jesus you are so ignorant. And Seb did.
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 17:56:29 "Right, because a political movement that demands a smaller and limited government somehow translate to nazism? " Right, that's all they stand for. ...
Hellfire Member	Mon Jan 10 17:57:21 (In practice)
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Jan 10 18:08:22 "Right, because the Nazis caring about their people and wanting them to prosper is a bad thing" - mexican von tard 1939
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 19:05:01 Mexicantornado: The point about the weimar republic is that it had a constitutional framework that was written by American constitutional scholars and heavily based on the US constitutional framework. Yet, within that constitutional framework, you ended up with Hitler. The point I am making is that such constitutional frameworks are neither responsible for, nor preventers of, the rise of dictators. However, when people invoke them with talismanic properties ("we are safe because we have a constitution", rather than being "eternally vigilant") that is when the problems tend to start. As you now seem to agree, it is the political history and established norms of political behaviour in the US and England that have allowed us to avoided dictatorship, not the US constitution. Rather the constitution is a reflection of the norms of political behaviour, and generally if you want to keep your stability, it is probably best to alter the constitution to reflect those norms.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 10 19:07:50 It would also be nice for you to acknowledge your error regarding constitutions in Germany and France, and appreciate that the Burka ban comes from the government observing it's constitutional duty to guarantee rights?
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Jan 10 19:42:42 You lost him at "framework" Seb.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: