4 ms·
My point was not that you need a written document called a constitution, merely what the document above states: "A constitution is about public power, the powe
by devoply 10y ago
My point was not that you need a written document called a constitution, merely what the document above states:
"A constitution is about public power, the power of the state. It describes and establishes the major institutions of government, states their principal powers, and regulates the exercise of those powers in a broad way. While all constitutions have these general characteristics, each constitution is affected by the national character of the state it services."
In the US it's a written document and it's held sacred by most Americans. But you don't need that, just what is mentioned above which I quoted. In either case it's a covenant with the government which limits the power of the government and protects the rights of people. You need that and you also need a lack of corruption, which in general terms means the government abides by the constitution. If you have these two things than the common man can expect to be treated a certain way by the government regardless of any of his or her affiliations and so on.
- disordinary 10y agoWell, I don't understand what your initial point is because every country has a constitution then - including Russia. The difference between is that in New Zealand the "constitution" is fluid and is very easy to change because it's simply laws. This is way off topic, but I think holding the constitution as some sort of semi-religious document is actually a bad thing, for instance the right to bear arms is seen by the rest of the world as quite odd and very scary. If people weren't so fervent about the document you can look at it objectively and make the required changes to reflect the times.