4 ms·

There's an implied freedom of political speech. The rest can be regulated by law. By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of divinely b

There's an implied freedom of political speech. The rest can be regulated by law. By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of divinely bestowed natural law document is highly unusual. For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament.

SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
This comment looks like it got voted down, probably because the tone sounds a little patronising to what it characterises as the American view. But nothing it says is to my knowledge inaccurate or even a twisting of facts. The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual. The Australian constitution IS literally an act of parliament to my understanding. Freedom of speech IS only intimated by the courts and is not explicitly stated in any part of the Australian constitution.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual." It's not highly unusual, see my comment below: it's normative. As for 'natural law' - well, the Canadian constitution essentially indicates that our rights are bestowed by the 'Supremacy of God' [1] which is kind of like 'natural law'. [1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39
  - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
    Your comment below doesn't demonstrate that constitutions being considered statements of natural law is normative at all. Constitutions far outdate the very concept of natural law, and your comment doesn't contain any evidence that this has become the norm in modern times. I dunno if I accept that the Canadian constitution does or not, it doesn't matter, one other country would not tip the balance.
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      (My comment below this one was meant to be directed as to the existence of speech laws, not the US constitution's position on 'natural laws') It's basically wrong to suggest that somehow the US's constitutional assertion indicating certain rights are 'natural' is somehow problematic - or even unique. The 'existential and inalienable rights of human beings' have been recognized not only in constitutional and legal forms throughout the world, but in various other texts and declarations. As I mentioned, the Canadian constitution refers directly to divine providence. (Which is another way of saying 'natural rights') The 'Basic Law' in Germany starts with this text: "Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law." This is definitely an existential assertion. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts like this: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" So they refer to inherent dignity which is essentially another way of saying 'natural right'. The Constitution of the Russian Federation: "We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples" Once again universally recognized principles yada yada ... Poland: "We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty, As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources, Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland," Greek constitution starts like this: "THE CONSTITUTION OF GREECE In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity" (Admittedly, it doesn't quite specify those things as sources of rights or provenance) Not surprisingly, most Arab state Constitutions defer to 'God' as the source of their ultimate authority, but again maybe unsurprisingly, don't dwell a lot on 'rights'. But from the 2012 Syrian constitution: "Freedom shall be a sacred right" - again alluding to the transcendental nature of certain rights. Shall I go on? Note that Australia (the nation in question here), and a whole host of other nations which do not specifically hint at the existential nature of human rights in their own texts, are in fact signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which legally enshrined the quote above. So that's going to add Sweden, UK, Norway etc. etc. as well to a very formal declaration of the 'natural rights' of people. So finally - the US's assertion of 'natural rights' is a) not an odd, special or contentious thing b) common enough in the world, constitutionally and legally that we can't really say that this nature of their Constitution is very unique.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
"By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of divinely bestowed natural law document is highly unusual." In addition to the US: Canadians have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Article 10 of the EU's convention on human rights guaranteEs freedom of expression. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a section of freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Chapter III, Article 21 of the Japanese constitution. Seems it's more common than not in modern countries.
cyphar 7y ago
> For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament. While that is historically accurate (you could even say it's an act of the UK Parliament too) -- it is unlike any other act in Australia. Parliament cannot amend it by themselves, and Parliament's legislative power is derived solely from the Constitution. Every country with a codified constitution considers their constitution to be the supreme law in their country and has special rules for amending it -- that's simply what a constitution is! Yes, Americans do love to fetishise their constitution but that's a social distinction not a legal one. If you look at countries without codified constitutions (New Zealand or the UK for instance), then there is a much stronger argument that their entire concept of their law is just a series of acts of Parliament and there is no supreme law. But Australia does have a codified constitution. > There's an implied freedom of political speech. Which is incredibly limited in scope. > The rest can be regulated by law. Which could be trivially amended by later governments. And newsflash -- we don't have laws for freedom of speech in this country. We're the only developed nation in the world that is in this situation.

SuperNinKenDo 7y ago

This comment looks like it got voted down, probably because the tone sounds a little patronising to what it characterises as the American view. But nothing it says is to my knowledge inaccurate or even a twisting of facts. The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual. The Australian constitution IS literally an act of parliament to my understanding. Freedom of speech IS only intimated by the courts and is not explicitly stated in any part of the Australian constitution.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
"The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual." It's not highly unusual, see my comment below: it's normative. As for 'natural law' - well, the Canadian constitution essentially indicates that our rights are bestowed by the 'Supremacy of God' [1] which is kind of like 'natural law'. [1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39
- SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
  Your comment below doesn't demonstrate that constitutions being considered statements of natural law is normative at all. Constitutions far outdate the very concept of natural law, and your comment doesn't contain any evidence that this has become the norm in modern times. I dunno if I accept that the Canadian constitution does or not, it doesn't matter, one other country would not tip the balance.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    (My comment below this one was meant to be directed as to the existence of speech laws, not the US constitution's position on 'natural laws') It's basically wrong to suggest that somehow the US's constitutional assertion indicating certain rights are 'natural' is somehow problematic - or even unique. The 'existential and inalienable rights of human beings' have been recognized not only in constitutional and legal forms throughout the world, but in various other texts and declarations. As I mentioned, the Canadian constitution refers directly to divine providence. (Which is another way of saying 'natural rights') The 'Basic Law' in Germany starts with this text: "Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law." This is definitely an existential assertion. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts like this: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" So they refer to inherent dignity which is essentially another way of saying 'natural right'. The Constitution of the Russian Federation: "We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples" Once again universally recognized principles yada yada ... Poland: "We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty, As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources, Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland," Greek constitution starts like this: "THE CONSTITUTION OF GREECE In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity" (Admittedly, it doesn't quite specify those things as sources of rights or provenance) Not surprisingly, most Arab state Constitutions defer to 'God' as the source of their ultimate authority, but again maybe unsurprisingly, don't dwell a lot on 'rights'. But from the 2012 Syrian constitution: "Freedom shall be a sacred right" - again alluding to the transcendental nature of certain rights. Shall I go on? Note that Australia (the nation in question here), and a whole host of other nations which do not specifically hint at the existential nature of human rights in their own texts, are in fact signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which legally enshrined the quote above. So that's going to add Sweden, UK, Norway etc. etc. as well to a very formal declaration of the 'natural rights' of people. So finally - the US's assertion of 'natural rights' is a) not an odd, special or contentious thing b) common enough in the world, constitutionally and legally that we can't really say that this nature of their Constitution is very unique.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

"By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of divinely bestowed natural law document is highly unusual." In addition to the US: Canadians have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Article 10 of the EU's convention on human rights guaranteEs freedom of expression. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a section of freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Chapter III, Article 21 of the Japanese constitution. Seems it's more common than not in modern countries.

cyphar 7y ago

> For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament. While that is historically accurate (you could even say it's an act of the UK Parliament too) -- it is unlike any other act in Australia. Parliament cannot amend it by themselves, and Parliament's legislative power is derived solely from the Constitution. Every country with a codified constitution considers their constitution to be the supreme law in their country and has special rules for amending it -- that's simply what a constitution is! Yes, Americans do love to fetishise their constitution but that's a social distinction not a legal one. If you look at countries without codified constitutions (New Zealand or the UK for instance), then there is a much stronger argument that their entire concept of their law is just a series of acts of Parliament and there is no supreme law. But Australia does have a codified constitution. > There's an implied freedom of political speech. Which is incredibly limited in scope. > The rest can be regulated by law. Which could be trivially amended by later governments. And newsflash -- we don't have laws for freedom of speech in this country. We're the only developed nation in the world that is in this situation.