Constitutions

[Funky Monk]

Ok, its pretty apparent that any succesful country is going to need a constitution, the question is, how should this be treated?

The American constitution has become a huge symbolic device, some may say overly so, but it does go some way to preserving people's rights, doubly so as it is so well publicised. You might be able to say that such a simple and concise constitution is what a leftist society would need, protecting people's rights, laying out the fundamental basics of government and perhaps most importantly providing a device with which children can be taught the fundamentals of their country and their role in society.

Naturally there are problems with this and certain arrangements would need to be established to prevent stagnation and to enforce the constitution but i would put forward the argument that an American stlye constitution is what a burgeoning leftist society would need.

[James]

The irish constitution is a good example of a more up to date, more european style of the US constitution.

Do you propose a bill of rights?

[Funky Monk]

Undoubtably so, as one of the basic parts of the constitution rather than as a group of ammendments. However i think that these should be just the basics and quite broad so as to ease their learning.

Where i think the Irish constitution suffers is that it is overly long and dull, as i have previously implied i want a constitution which kids can learn in school, which can become imprinted in the minds of all citizens.

[James]

Now this is a point of contention.
What a left winger deems a right, a more right wing person may deem an infringement.
Where does the balance go?

I agree - the irish is bloody long, and bloody boring.
I like the system by which the president can send bills to the Supreme court to check the constitutionality of, before having to sign (i think...).
I also like the way the president is more ceremonial - more like the Us president was meant to be like?

What sort of executive would you propose?

[Funky Monk]

I would have to agree on the more ceremonial style of executive trying to remove too much power from the grasp of one man. I also agree with your point about the checking of bills before signing them.

However i think that it would be a good idea that at the origins of a leftist society certain rights, life, freedom of speech etc. would be enshrined and that other rights would be implied and left up to a system of judicial review with composition of a Supreme Court style organisation to be determined.

[James]

This makes the judiciary a significant aspect of the state - i was wondering... how would you appoint them?

What sort of politics would you "like" too?
Party like Britain - or US, or inbetween. Or china!

[Funky Monk]

Well i think "party" politics is intrinsic to most leftist ideas :P


I'd have a judiciary clearly focused on matter of civil rights, acting as a check against an overbearing government. Independantly appointed by a committee of something or others. How about each judge appoints a succeser? THat way the make-up of the Court, liberal in origin should be preserved?

[James]

intrinsic to most leftist ideas

Not dacuban, bless him.



I'd have a judiciary clearly focused on matter of civil rights, acting as a check against an overbearing government. Independantly appointed by a committee of something or others. How about each judge appoints a succeser? THat way the make-up of the Court, liberal in origin should be preserved?

Well some countries have two don't they? One being a Constitutional Court. And the other, just the highest "normal" court in the land.

Independently appointed by a committee... oxymoron if you ask me.
What sort of committee?

I'm interested by you successer idea. My only concern is that it doesn't open it up to many though - also there are issues regarding bribes; favouritism. Best judge for the job? Should the nominations be kept secrete (obvioulsy they need to be written down straight away, in case the judge dies over night)?

[Funky Monk]

Committee is the best alternative to nomination that i can think of although the make-up of such a committee would have to be something which is debated.

The succeser idea i feel might lead to the stagnation of the court over time and i take your point on it. A secret nomination changeable at any time by the judge would effectively provide the court with a candidate to take over at any time and by keeping it secret you would minimalise the chance for corruption or alteration of actions once a candidate knows he has been picked.

On the subject of favouratism i think it would be accurate to suggest that a judge would pick his succeser after careful consideration of who is best suited to carry on his legacy. This would mean that a judge is likely to pick someone who is most like him in regards to policy effectvely maintaining the make-up of the court.

[James]

Committee is the best alternative to nomination that i can think of although the make-up of such a committee would have to be something which is debated.

I suppose it depends on whether you think they should be political decisions. I'm a bit weary of the political point scoring which can take place - especially with a divided government. Bork 1987?
This is a more general point too - the democrats in the senate have been giving bush a hell of a time over his federal court nominations. Its easy to block them. Think 2/3 vote is needed to kick a filibuster out.


On the subject of favouratism i think it would be accurate to suggest that a judge would pick his succeser after careful consideration of who is best suited to carry on his legacy. This would mean that a judge is likely to pick someone who is most like him in regards to policy effectvely maintaining the make-up of the court.

Which leads me to the horrible question - who selects the first judges?

[DaCuBaN]

Not dacuban, bless him

Wha? Huh? Oh....


"party" politics is intrinsic to most leftist ideas

Did noone tell you? I'm a traitor to the revolution for not wanting concrete political affiliations :lol:

Personally I still think I'm right though... the word 'representative' only detracts from the suffix 'democracy' and any party based political system holds up such an institution.

I'm not too keen on the idea of a 'successor' either - perhaps combining this with some form of popularity contest? For example, the previous supreme judge could nominate 10 individuals on whom a vote would be taken...

[Funky Monk]

But what about the fears that an elected albeit ceremonial President would therefore be too similar to the judges?

And in reply to James's question, I select the judges!

[James]

By the population?

[James]

I select the judges!

Which judges do you like at the moment?
What would be your "kind"?
What balance would you go for? Would it be biased one way?






How many would sit on this constitutional court too?

[Funky Monk]

I think in terms of numbers 5,7 or 9 would be best for a constitutional court.

Judge i currently like are Thomas, and the woman who is not related to the druggy.


Seriouslyi i think some carefully organised committee (that dread word again) should be called in creation for the single purpose of deciding who should stand as the original judges, subsequently of course this committee would be defunct.

I'd have to say that i would intentionally go for a Liberal bias, i know it sounds crazy but when Civil Rights are an issue i just want those damn Liberals to be calling the shots.

[James]

I thought Thomas was a right winger?

What does everyone from england think of Wolf (sp?), the english media don't like him.

What we need are founding fathers who make the initial "undemocratic steps" such as this. Oh and how about a panel? Which isn't part of the legislature.
Sort of like the American Bar Association i guess; but something more concrete and accountable.

I mean would you go for a mix or not?

The question i thought of whilst cleaning my teeth - what powers would they have regarding cases? Personally i think constitutional courts should be able to seek cases out.

Oh, and how about not having a president. It seems so american to me. Rather, lets have a "secretary"! I think its a more suitable name for its role too.

[Funky Monk]

Thomas is right wing but i respect him for the way in which he is able to stand above the calls of those who say he should always vote a certain way, he is independant.


I agree with you on that mark, they should be able to seek cases out, but the question is how? Lets face it, there are going to be a huge amount of cases out there and sifting through them is going to be placed into the hands of an unnacountable civil service.

I always intended my "committees" to be independant of the legislature, perhaps local representatives. Perhaps even regional representatives, voted for annually, supported by the state and hopefully with no party affiliations.

[DaCuBaN]

Perhaps even regional representatives, voted for annually, supported by the state and hopefully with no party affiliations

That's the spirit! ;) :lol:

[Funky Monk]

A "secretary" doesnt inspire me with confidence for making any important descisions i have to say. Im sure title is not really important, perhaps a return to the title of "First Minister" as opposed to Prime Minister would sound better.

[James]

Fair point.

Good question. I imagine the constitutional court would have to be given a small army of lawyers/secretaries of its own.

I'm not sure how ABA membership works. I'm uncomfortable with the prospect of "elected" judges... how about judicial conferences, which judges from the shire's (coming from and English point of view) are members of: and who elect the panel. Term limits would be a VERY good thing in this case, to try and reduce the politicalness of it.

[Funky Monk]

The regional idea i like, term limits less so.

As far as i can tell term limits in terms of judicial organisations only serve to take away experienced personnel. I was thinking of an American style serve till they step down idea.

[Guerrilla22]

For one thing, if you have a constitution it should be followed and that's not what's happening in the US right now. Our constitution has been subjected to a pre-emptive strike by the Bush administration all in the name of combatting terrorism.

Of course not all leftist agree with the concept of a constitution, especially a bill of rights, however I feel that a definite outline of the limitations and authority of a government should be in place and followed to prevent political instability. A good example of what happens when there is a lack of a strong constitution, or the constitution of a country is not followed: Latin America.

[h&s]

Where i think the Irish constitution suffers is that it is overly long and dull, as i have previously implied i want a constitution which kids can learn in school, which can become imprinted in the minds of all citizens.
Hang on a minute, imprinting the constitution on the minds of children is just wrong.
You'll have them swearing alliegence to a flag next!
It leads to the kids thinking that everything in their country is perfect, "because the constitution says so."
This just breeds apathy into the population, which is always wrong.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 30 2004, 06:59 PM
Hang on a minute, imprinting the constitution on the minds of children is just wrong.
You'll have them swearing alliegence to a flag next!
It leads to the kids thinking that everything in their country is perfect, "because the constitution says so."
This just breeds apathy into the population, which is always wrong.
What I'd also like to avoid is the idea of an infallible piece of paper. Things are not just because a constitution says so, as is thought in America.

[Funky Monk]

Im not suggesting imprinting the constitution on the minds of the kids in a manner so as to link it to the country and the idea of superiority. What i think does need to happen is that people have a clear understanding of their rights and place in society. We aren't saying "ohh this constitution makes us the best" more "this is what society can do for you and what you can do for society".

[James]

term limits less so.


I mean for the ABA equivalent.

+ + +


Hang on a minute, imprinting the constitution on the minds of children is just wrong.
You'll have them swearing alliegence to a flag next!
It leads to the kids thinking that everything in their country is perfect, "because the constitution says so."
This just breeds apathy into the population, which is always wrong.


The constitution is the highest law in the land.
Teaching people the law, and getting them to swear loyalty to a flag are not the same.


+ + +


What I'd also like to avoid is the idea of an infallible piece of paper. Things are not just because a constitution says so, as is thought in America.


Could you expand upon that please?

[Kez]

I think a constitution should be really defined, no vague elements, and it should be very easily changed.

I dont think some old fuck 100 years before should influence todays society in what he thought, constitution should represent our ideals today.

[Funky Monk]

How easily changed? Surely if it is really easily changed there is little point in it existing at all.

The problem with really long constitutions is that they are as dull as fuck, ever read any of the Brazilian constitutions? fucking huge and as such really inacessable.

[James]

Or the EU one.

Jefferson had the idea of a constitution convention every twenty years - to review it. I can see the logic in that.

But i disagree - constitutions shouldn't be easily changed.

[Kez]

why not?
British way is best from capitalist countries, its most in touch with people (which says something about the other ones...) compared to US, which is entrenched etc etc

[James]

most in touch with people

I didn't know you were a monarchist kamo!

[Kez]

hows that?

i post was in reference in that all statute law becomes part of the constitution.

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:49 PM
why not?
British way is best from capitalist countries, its most in touch with people (which says something about the other ones...) compared to US, which is entrenched etc etc
Yes but the "vague" nature of the US Constitution and the process of Judicial review means that it is, in reality rather flexible, it has been reintrepreted to make it relevant to modern life.

[Kez]

why allow it to be manipulated?

Why dont u just set the fucking law straight? if its wrong, u change it.

[Funky Monk]

I suppose the definition of wrong is too open to debate, i mean look at fucking Blunkett with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act

[James]

rule of law demands a clear and enforcable statement - such as a bill of rights.
Also, bill of rights can impose legal limitations of government actions - a big problem with our flexible-as-a-rubber-band constitution = elective dictatorship.
Like GCHQ not being allowed trade unions.

[DaCuBaN]

constitution should represent our ideals today

Yet the 'ideals' will change over time, and hence any constitution couldn't be a concrete piece of law - it would cripple, and inevitably destroy the 'nation'


British way is best from capitalist countries, its most in touch with people

Bollocks kez and you know it. We have no mass workers party (and don't give me that shit about it being labour - it's somewhere we agree to disagree, and as I too work my point is just as valid) we have a system whereby the parliament is devolved into regions, yet ministers from those regions have a say in what becomes law in other parts (eg Tuition Fees).

Frankly, what we have in the UK is a complete mess. It may not be as corrupt as the US and perhaps a few others, but it's totally unrepresentative of the population.


Surely if it is really easily changed there is little point in it existing at all

Indeed - the idea of a constitution actually sickens me... why the hell would we need a piece of paper to tell us what 'rights' we have? Either it would be a short and snappy (and hence totally useless as it would have such vague content) document, or a huge long winded essay that half the population wouldn't even bother to read

A complete waste of time in my eyes. The only thing a constitution need define is that any ruling 'class' must be entirely representative of the working class.

[Kez]

"Frankly, what we have in the UK is a complete mess. It may not be as corrupt as the US and perhaps a few others, but it's totally unrepresentative of the population."

but its more so than the US, which was my point, making it a valid point.

[DaCuBaN]

Sorry... the fans at my work have stopped working so it's getting quite hot... the sweat is literally pouring off me and I'm rather 'jumpy'

I pretty much attacked you there - sorry bud. Your point is indeed valid.

[James]

i can see the point in a constitution, in setting our procedures: like what powers an upper and lower house have.

[Kez]

no probs DaCuBan, throw a strike at work for shit work conditions, im not even jokin.

James, no1 is doubting we need a constitution, however, the procedure to change it should be easier, otherwise it becomes a conservative constitution, in that it keeps hold of the old, rather than a progressive one which is in accordance with society take.

[DaCuBaN]

throw a strike at work for shit work conditions

I would... there are four of us in the building right now and they're all game :lol: It was just a glitch.

I agree with kez here, the constitution has to be entirely flexible. To be honest though I think it would be better not to have one at all - The closets thing to it being that Every man is equal

But then I'd want the place run in a demarchic style...

[Funky Monk]

Seriously you dont have to just look to the constitution to make it flexible (i know that sounds wierd).


There are plenty of other methods of ensuring an evolving constitution without making ammendment too easy. Look at the stuff James and I were talking about last night about constitutional courts,

[Kez]

if you were to have a slow changing one,then i would say the only things it could concern itself would be how institutions work.

It shouldnt include anything on rights, or punishment or anything like that.

eg gun laws were made to protect states in US constitution, but theyre not needed now, but it cant be changed coz its so fuckin entrenched (among other reasons)

[James]

So how would you protect rights?

[Kez]

statute law.

[Funky Monk]

And how would you prevent the executive/legislature from curtailing rights?

[DaCuBaN]

with a pointy stick

[monkeydust]

Do you propose a bill of rights?


Technically speaking, the UK does have a Bill of Rights, though I'm sure you know this and I will end the pedantry here.

In my opinion, in Britain, as well as almost every other state in the World there's really not much point point in having a bill of rights.

A Bill of Rights is only effective if respected by politicians themselves. If it is to be repsected in such a way, then it need not exist in order for people to uphold its values. In other words, the existence of a Bill of Rights if not important if a political class is willing to uphold key rights without regardless of whether a document requires it.

Much more useful, is the development of a "political culture" in which basic vaues, and rights are treasured and upheld.

If politicians don't give a "rat's arse" about a Bill of Rights, then its effect tends to be quite useless, in fact, it may be a "false hope" in that citizens may believe they are protected from the state when they are, realistically not.

The Weimar Republic had an extensive Bill of rights, its constitution was described at the time by commentators as "the most democratic in the world". Yet as early as 1930 (three years before Hitler became Chancellor), the system was abused and ignored to the extent that it became worthless. And "the people" could do nothing to prevent this. This could happen anywhere if the situation arose.

In any case, would you wish to place the interpretation of vague rights (such as the rigt to life) in the hands of unelected, unnacountable, white, elderly bigoted men (the British judiciary)?

I certainly wouldn't.


For one thing, if you have a constitution it should be followed and that's not what's happening in the US right now. Our constitution has been subjected to a pre-emptive strike by the Bush administration all in the name of combatting terrorism

Quite right, that demonstrates the practical worthlessness of such constitutional protection.


I think a constitution should be really defined, no vague elements, and it should be very easily changed.


Rigidly defined and flexible, are the two compatible?

[Kez]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 1 2004, 07:44 AM
And how would you prevent the executive/legislature from curtailing rights?
greater accountability, greater democracy, keep people in power in check, and not the shitty american type of cheecks and balances