5 ms·

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majori

by msravi 6y ago

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.
- taurath 6y ago
  And fundamentally that is to preserve existing institutions of legalities, so that the dictator can wield the power of the state and not have the state itself dissolve.
- rtpg 6y ago
  France, for example, has gone through many different constitutions (the current one is from 1958). I don’t think they’re unique in changing up their foundational texts (and don’t forget places like the UK, that have no constitution, and rely on norms) But my point was mainly around popular movements. Not going to comment on international judgement in these circumstances
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    Well, I'm not going to argue with you, there is no real disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you can be certain the members in various constitutional assemblies have been well aware of your point, and that contradictions in constitutions are not minor issues.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    We... several different constitutions. The current one is called the Fifth Republic. The Third Republic ended when Germany took over the country, and the Fourth Republic was kind of an abortive mess. It was more akin to the US taking a mulligan after the Articles of Confederation. The Third Republic had actually lasted quite a while. There was definitely a mess before that: monarchy, revolution that created a republic that turned into an empire, then a monarchy again, then a republic again, then the nephew of the original emperor being declared emperor... the 19th century was not a good time to be French. (And I'm leaving out some revolutions and constitutions that didn't go anywhere.) But after that they really had settled down, until an outside force blew it all up. The 19th century wasn't really all that solid anywhere in Europe. Germany and Italy didn't do any better.
- varjag 6y ago
  International law is even more an afterthought for status quo than national constitutions. Noone is really bound by it unless it crosses a handful of powerful national actors with the guns. And countries recognizing governments unrecognized by others is common. Happened multiple times this side of the millennium.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  If they seize power by force AND they piss off NATO, then yeah. If they're anticommunists in Latin America, or anti-Gaddaffi in Libya, they'll probably be fine.
bluGill 6y ago
Doesn't even need a majority, just enough powerful people. If our generals decide to take over what stops them? Recent history around the world has a number or such cases.
- cecja 6y ago
  You fucking americans and your but it's not against the law attitude it's just suffocating reading comments like this all the time everywhere. bUt If It'S nOt IlLeGaL. Holy shit you are all cunts.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
That's a corner case, though. Anything is possible if you can get enough people to simultaneously adopt a new intersubjective[0] belief. In reality, changes in laws happen when a small group supports them and, small opposition notwithstanding, vast majority of people do not care. One of the easiest ways to make the majority care - and oppose you - is to push your changes in a way that violates existing legal framework, particularly important things like a constitution. As long as you don't do that - as long as you take things slow and don't raise people's alarms - you can boil the proverbial frog. That's what these clauses are meant to protect from. A series moves, planned or accidental, that could turn the country into dictatorship. -- [0] - I.e. the kind that's valid as long as enough people believe enough other people believe it's valid. Like a constitution. Or money.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  I think this is overlooking the larger issue: in these scenarios there are powerful groups that plan to turn the country into a dictatorship, and that's really the bit to worry about. You cannot simply write down a law prohibiting becoming a dictatorship and then sit back thinking all will be fine, because then these groups will simply grow their power until they can ignore the bits of the law they don't like. And they don't need to change the law to gain power, they merely need acceptance of their telling of events. On the other hand, without extensive support you cannot create a dictatorship because that word implies such extensive societal control that there simply must be extensive power behind it for it to function at all.

by msravi 6y ago

jonathanstrange 6y ago

That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.

taurath 6y ago
And fundamentally that is to preserve existing institutions of legalities, so that the dictator can wield the power of the state and not have the state itself dissolve.
rtpg 6y ago
France, for example, has gone through many different constitutions (the current one is from 1958). I don’t think they’re unique in changing up their foundational texts (and don’t forget places like the UK, that have no constitution, and rely on norms) But my point was mainly around popular movements. Not going to comment on international judgement in these circumstances
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Well, I'm not going to argue with you, there is no real disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you can be certain the members in various constitutional assemblies have been well aware of your point, and that contradictions in constitutions are not minor issues.
- jfengel 6y ago
  We... several different constitutions. The current one is called the Fifth Republic. The Third Republic ended when Germany took over the country, and the Fourth Republic was kind of an abortive mess. It was more akin to the US taking a mulligan after the Articles of Confederation. The Third Republic had actually lasted quite a while. There was definitely a mess before that: monarchy, revolution that created a republic that turned into an empire, then a monarchy again, then a republic again, then the nephew of the original emperor being declared emperor... the 19th century was not a good time to be French. (And I'm leaving out some revolutions and constitutions that didn't go anywhere.) But after that they really had settled down, until an outside force blew it all up. The 19th century wasn't really all that solid anywhere in Europe. Germany and Italy didn't do any better.
varjag 6y ago
International law is even more an afterthought for status quo than national constitutions. Noone is really bound by it unless it crosses a handful of powerful national actors with the guns. And countries recognizing governments unrecognized by others is common. Happened multiple times this side of the millennium.
refenestrator 6y ago
If they seize power by force AND they piss off NATO, then yeah. If they're anticommunists in Latin America, or anti-Gaddaffi in Libya, they'll probably be fine.

bluGill 6y ago

Doesn't even need a majority, just enough powerful people. If our generals decide to take over what stops them? Recent history around the world has a number or such cases.

cecja 6y ago
You fucking americans and your but it's not against the law attitude it's just suffocating reading comments like this all the time everywhere. bUt If It'S nOt IlLeGaL. Holy shit you are all cunts.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

That's a corner case, though. Anything is possible if you can get enough people to simultaneously adopt a new intersubjective[0] belief. In reality, changes in laws happen when a small group supports them and, small opposition notwithstanding, vast majority of people do not care. One of the easiest ways to make the majority care - and oppose you - is to push your changes in a way that violates existing legal framework, particularly important things like a constitution. As long as you don't do that - as long as you take things slow and don't raise people's alarms - you can boil the proverbial frog. That's what these clauses are meant to protect from. A series moves, planned or accidental, that could turn the country into dictatorship. -- [0] - I.e. the kind that's valid as long as enough people believe enough other people believe it's valid. Like a constitution. Or money.

SiempreViernes 6y ago
I think this is overlooking the larger issue: in these scenarios there are powerful groups that plan to turn the country into a dictatorship, and that's really the bit to worry about. You cannot simply write down a law prohibiting becoming a dictatorship and then sit back thinking all will be fine, because then these groups will simply grow their power until they can ignore the bits of the law they don't like. And they don't need to change the law to gain power, they merely need acceptance of their telling of events. On the other hand, without extensive support you cannot create a dictatorship because that word implies such extensive societal control that there simply must be extensive power behind it for it to function at all.