6 ms·

This is very cool. Diff for 42nd Ammendment which was used to impose emergency https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/commit/5e6a4c6617acd95

This is very cool. Diff for 42nd Ammendment which was used to impose emergency https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/commit/5e6a4c6617acd955a93839e6d6bb0e7052f5cae8#diff-b64c67a6dc1ba74a8bea24c25b8d8b8bbf760ca5ec2f9488856f425924f34f6b https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/c...

mishraprince 6y ago
Especially look at the restrictions on courts!
- Noumenon72 6y ago
  I did Ctrl+F for "speech" and "press" and did not find anything in https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/commit/5e6a4c6617acd955a93839e6d6bb0e7052f5cae8#diff-b64c67a6dc1ba74a8bea24c25b8d8b8bbf760ca5ec2f9488856f425924f34f6b https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/c...
  - mishraprince 6y ago
    oh, I meant "courts" not press. Let me correct the comment. I was especially referring to https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/commit/5e6a4c6617acd955a93839e6d6bb0e7052f5cae8#diff-1010379880bfb848bc72ea3d6232f3e66fef99a8fe63824313591a8a5f733469 https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/c... This amendment to Article 368 essentially gave the legislature unrestricted power to amend the constitution without fear of a judicial review.
    - eevilspock 6y ago
      There is no judicial review for amendments to the US constitution either. In the US the job of the courts are to interpret and apply the constitution. It's not their role to write it or constrain the writing of it.
      - lazide 6y ago
        The Supreme Court can and does severely constrain or expand what the writing is interpreted to actually apply to - you see this all the time around 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th US amendments. In theory, a whole amendment could be neutered or nuked that way.
        enkid 6y ago
        No, that's not how it works. The 1st, 2nd, etc. Amendments are reinterpreted, but they are never done away with unless another amendment modifies or nullifies it. Laws that are not part of the constution on the other hand are nullified by the courts relatively frequently.
        lazide 6y ago
        In theory, but in practice that is more of an accepted convention than a hard rule and dependent on the willingness of the other branches to rein it in. As the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, including how to read and interpret existing language - they can do what they can get away with. For instance, the text of the 10th Amendment makes it pretty clear that the original intent was that states were sovereign except for those powers explicitly carved out to the Federal gov't - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...] Since WW2 (and a bit before that, including rulings 'reinterpreting' the commerce clause to cover things like growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption within an individual state to assist the Executive in enforcing price controls over the economy), the supreme court has ruled that essentially Congress can regulate anything it wants, city, state and federal level. This is how we've ended up with things like federal laws against possession of drugs (even in states that have them legalized), federal laws regulating firearms (including possession of ones that are legalized in the state), federal laws on computer crimes, etc. If that isn't a radical shift and expansion of an amendment (without going through a further amendment process), I don't know what is. Similarly on the defacto removal side - 4th amendment protections and Asset Forfeiture, which allows near arbitrary and impossible to stop seizure of 'suspicious' assets has been ruled constitutional on a very flimsy basis - essentially as long as it gets rubber stamped by the courts, good to go.

mishraprince 6y ago

Especially look at the restrictions on courts!

Noumenon72 6y ago
I did Ctrl+F for "speech" and "press" and did not find anything in https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/commit/5e6a4c6617acd955a93839e6d6bb0e7052f5cae8#diff-b64c67a6dc1ba74a8bea24c25b8d8b8bbf760ca5ec2f9488856f425924f34f6b https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/c...
- mishraprince 6y ago
  oh, I meant "courts" not press. Let me correct the comment. I was especially referring to https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/commit/5e6a4c6617acd955a93839e6d6bb0e7052f5cae8#diff-1010379880bfb848bc72ea3d6232f3e66fef99a8fe63824313591a8a5f733469 https://github.com/prince-mishra/the-constitution-of-india/c... This amendment to Article 368 essentially gave the legislature unrestricted power to amend the constitution without fear of a judicial review.
  - eevilspock 6y ago
    There is no judicial review for amendments to the US constitution either. In the US the job of the courts are to interpret and apply the constitution. It's not their role to write it or constrain the writing of it.
    - lazide 6y ago
      The Supreme Court can and does severely constrain or expand what the writing is interpreted to actually apply to - you see this all the time around 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th US amendments. In theory, a whole amendment could be neutered or nuked that way.
      - enkid 6y ago
        No, that's not how it works. The 1st, 2nd, etc. Amendments are reinterpreted, but they are never done away with unless another amendment modifies or nullifies it. Laws that are not part of the constution on the other hand are nullified by the courts relatively frequently.
        lazide 6y ago
        In theory, but in practice that is more of an accepted convention than a hard rule and dependent on the willingness of the other branches to rein it in. As the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, including how to read and interpret existing language - they can do what they can get away with. For instance, the text of the 10th Amendment makes it pretty clear that the original intent was that states were sovereign except for those powers explicitly carved out to the Federal gov't - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...] Since WW2 (and a bit before that, including rulings 'reinterpreting' the commerce clause to cover things like growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption within an individual state to assist the Executive in enforcing price controls over the economy), the supreme court has ruled that essentially Congress can regulate anything it wants, city, state and federal level. This is how we've ended up with things like federal laws against possession of drugs (even in states that have them legalized), federal laws regulating firearms (including possession of ones that are legalized in the state), federal laws on computer crimes, etc. If that isn't a radical shift and expansion of an amendment (without going through a further amendment process), I don't know what is. Similarly on the defacto removal side - 4th amendment protections and Asset Forfeiture, which allows near arbitrary and impossible to stop seizure of 'suspicious' assets has been ruled constitutional on a very flimsy basis - essentially as long as it gets rubber stamped by the courts, good to go.