4 ms·

They used the same "counter-terrorism" law to confiscate David Miranda's laptop and other possessions, as well as detain him for 9 hours. https://www.theguardi

by mtgx 9y ago

They used the same "counter-terrorism" law to confiscate David Miranda's laptop and other possessions, as well as detain him for 9 hours. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-... It's a shame UK doesn't have a real constitution. It would probably help prevent some of this bullshit. Maybe it's time the British people start asking for one.

r00fus 9y ago
The US constitution doesn't seem to be preventing almost every modern administration and congress from ignoring it. What protects the constitution from those sworn from upholding it?
- valuearb 9y ago
  It’s the greatest question, and i often ponder it. I believe the answer is different incentives. The specifics are much harder.
- gruez 9y ago
  nothing, but at least you can try to fight it in court
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Right now, one political party has majority over all three branches of government (including both houses of congress). About the only reason changes aren't being made into law quicker is that this party in control is pushing some very polarizing/unpopular legislation/edicts.
- fit2rule 9y ago
  At the moment? Momentum of the general belief that, in fact, the Constitution worked .. for a while. It is only Americas belief in itself which perpetuates the mythos that Americans had rights (in the not-too-distant past) that most of the rest of the world, explicitly did not have... Whereas, the British (and the Australians, who have one of the most embarrassing 'constitutions' of them all) seem to have been fine, all along, to just roll over and expose themselves to their masters, the ruling classes. Nevertheless, these constitutions are nothing more than smart contracts. I'm wondering if anyone has done the UDHR as a smart contract .. seems that might be the right thing to ICO.
- jancsika 9y ago
  You've phrased your response in a way that seems to prevent falsification, but I'll give it a shot anyway. For example-- the Trump administration's initial travel ban executive order was blocked by the courts based directly on issues of consitutionality. Furthermore, if you read the text of that bill you can tell the authors were careful not to use the frank, unambiguous language that Trump used on the campaign trail as that would have been thrown out by the courts even more quickly. So there you have it-- an example where the current administration did the opposite of ignoring the U.S. constitution, and a court system that blocked the executive order even though the administration tried to skirt the intent of the constitution (namely, the 1st amendment). Does this falsify your statement? If you don't think so, please give me an example of what you think would falsify it and I'll give that a shot.
- turc1656 9y ago
  The 3rd and 4th boxes of liberty. As a reminder, the four boxes are: 1. Soap 2. Ballot 3. Jury 4. Ammo If the first two aren't working, you take to the jury box, and when people are unjustly charged with crimes that are either misapplied laws or simply that which people deem to be unjust laws, they can find a defendant not guilty on any grounds they wish in the US. That's one of the more critical aspects of the courtroom that often goes overlooked. Jury nullification is rarely talked about but it's a crucial power of the people. Judges and law enforcement hate it because society can effectively nullify anything by refusal to return guilty verdicts. So even if someone is clearly guilty under the wording of a law but the jury determines it to be an unfair law or a law applied unfairly, they can find them not guilty. However, the reverse is not true. Guilty verdicts must be returned in accordance with the wording of the law and historical precedent, in conjunction with the guidance the judge provides. In cases like this, though, things are more difficult because it's not just the charges that are levied, it's the entire way the government is conducting itself. That is much more difficult to solve is 1 and 2 don't work and why the 4th box is supposed to be used under only the most dire of circumstances. Of course, I don't think the government is entirely to blame. People keep voting these scumbags back into office for some reason so apparently there are people out there who approve of what their representatives are doing. And yet, amazingly, everyone seems displeased at the results. It's fascinating, really. It's like everyone has this mentality of, "all these congresspeople are lying dirtbags...except for mine."
cat199 9y ago
Indeed.. it seems they need... MIRANDA RIGHTS wocka wocka wocka
- pc86 9y ago
  The fact that you felt this was an appropriate comment for Hacker News is shocking.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> It's a shame UK doesn't have a real constitution. The UK has a real Constitution, even if it isn't in a single document; OTOH, it may not have the content you would prefer on this issue. But even if it did, a Constitution, like any set of laws, doesn't constraint behavior in the absence of people actually exerting effort to enforce it, it's just—absent enforcement—just words.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
The UK does have a constitution. I’m puzzled as to why you think it would be more effective were it codified in a single document.
- mjw1007 9y ago
  You make it sound as if the UK has a constitution which is codified in some patchwork of documents, like statute law. But it isn't; it isn't even as coherently defined as something like the common law of murder, where you can make a pile of statutes and legal precedents and get a fairly clear idea of where the boundaries are. The constitution is very fuzzy indeed, and parts of it depend very much on how much political and media support someone can get when they point a finger and declare "unconstitutional!".
- int_19h 9y ago
  The UK doesn't have a constitution in a sense that US does - i.e. supreme law that checks powers of all branches of government - because the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty allows the Parliament to override any constitutional limitations, simply by fiat. Worse yet, this only requires a simple majority.

by mtgx 9y ago

r00fus 9y ago

The US constitution doesn't seem to be preventing almost every modern administration and congress from ignoring it. What protects the constitution from those sworn from upholding it?

valuearb 9y ago
It’s the greatest question, and i often ponder it. I believe the answer is different incentives. The specifics are much harder.
gruez 9y ago
nothing, but at least you can try to fight it in court
- r00fus 9y ago
  Right now, one political party has majority over all three branches of government (including both houses of congress). About the only reason changes aren't being made into law quicker is that this party in control is pushing some very polarizing/unpopular legislation/edicts.
fit2rule 9y ago
At the moment? Momentum of the general belief that, in fact, the Constitution worked .. for a while. It is only Americas belief in itself which perpetuates the mythos that Americans had rights (in the not-too-distant past) that most of the rest of the world, explicitly did not have... Whereas, the British (and the Australians, who have one of the most embarrassing 'constitutions' of them all) seem to have been fine, all along, to just roll over and expose themselves to their masters, the ruling classes. Nevertheless, these constitutions are nothing more than smart contracts. I'm wondering if anyone has done the UDHR as a smart contract .. seems that might be the right thing to ICO.
jancsika 9y ago
You've phrased your response in a way that seems to prevent falsification, but I'll give it a shot anyway. For example-- the Trump administration's initial travel ban executive order was blocked by the courts based directly on issues of consitutionality. Furthermore, if you read the text of that bill you can tell the authors were careful not to use the frank, unambiguous language that Trump used on the campaign trail as that would have been thrown out by the courts even more quickly. So there you have it-- an example where the current administration did the opposite of ignoring the U.S. constitution, and a court system that blocked the executive order even though the administration tried to skirt the intent of the constitution (namely, the 1st amendment). Does this falsify your statement? If you don't think so, please give me an example of what you think would falsify it and I'll give that a shot.
turc1656 9y ago
The 3rd and 4th boxes of liberty. As a reminder, the four boxes are: 1. Soap 2. Ballot 3. Jury 4. Ammo If the first two aren't working, you take to the jury box, and when people are unjustly charged with crimes that are either misapplied laws or simply that which people deem to be unjust laws, they can find a defendant not guilty on any grounds they wish in the US. That's one of the more critical aspects of the courtroom that often goes overlooked. Jury nullification is rarely talked about but it's a crucial power of the people. Judges and law enforcement hate it because society can effectively nullify anything by refusal to return guilty verdicts. So even if someone is clearly guilty under the wording of a law but the jury determines it to be an unfair law or a law applied unfairly, they can find them not guilty. However, the reverse is not true. Guilty verdicts must be returned in accordance with the wording of the law and historical precedent, in conjunction with the guidance the judge provides. In cases like this, though, things are more difficult because it's not just the charges that are levied, it's the entire way the government is conducting itself. That is much more difficult to solve is 1 and 2 don't work and why the 4th box is supposed to be used under only the most dire of circumstances. Of course, I don't think the government is entirely to blame. People keep voting these scumbags back into office for some reason so apparently there are people out there who approve of what their representatives are doing. And yet, amazingly, everyone seems displeased at the results. It's fascinating, really. It's like everyone has this mentality of, "all these congresspeople are lying dirtbags...except for mine."

cat199 9y ago

Indeed.. it seems they need... MIRANDA RIGHTS wocka wocka wocka

pc86 9y ago
The fact that you felt this was an appropriate comment for Hacker News is shocking.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> It's a shame UK doesn't have a real constitution. The UK has a real Constitution, even if it isn't in a single document; OTOH, it may not have the content you would prefer on this issue. But even if it did, a Constitution, like any set of laws, doesn't constraint behavior in the absence of people actually exerting effort to enforce it, it's just—absent enforcement—just words.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

The UK does have a constitution. I’m puzzled as to why you think it would be more effective were it codified in a single document.

mjw1007 9y ago
You make it sound as if the UK has a constitution which is codified in some patchwork of documents, like statute law. But it isn't; it isn't even as coherently defined as something like the common law of murder, where you can make a pile of statutes and legal precedents and get a fairly clear idea of where the boundaries are. The constitution is very fuzzy indeed, and parts of it depend very much on how much political and media support someone can get when they point a finger and declare "unconstitutional!".
int_19h 9y ago
The UK doesn't have a constitution in a sense that US does - i.e. supreme law that checks powers of all branches of government - because the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty allows the Parliament to override any constitutional limitations, simply by fiat. Worse yet, this only requires a simple majority.