3 ms·

If you define the democratic principals in the constitution, and define them as fundamental, then the constitutional court would consider any lesser law as unco

If you define the democratic principals in the constitution, and define them as fundamental, then the constitutional court would consider any lesser law as unconstitutional.

amelius 3y ago
Yes, but the people in favor of the law will just say that the senate approved of the law, and since they are democratically installed ...
- gostsamo 3y ago
  It does not matter, it is the constitutional court who decides if the law is compatible with the constitution, not the senate. E.g. if in the constitution it is written that judges must be elected with a popular vote, the senate cannot adopt a law saying that it is a president's prerogative. The fact that both senate and president are democratically elected does not matter, because their legitimacy is given by the constitution and therefore they cannot override it. So, the constitution is a protection, however, you should define well what a "democratic principal" is and how to recognize if something is not part of it. The best way is to assert a list of unalienable rights like right of property, access to information, and right of privacy, such that no law could be adopted which goes against them. The government being democratic is only a secondary defense, and not very reliable should add. * fictional example
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Curiously there was vehement argument at the time of the Bill of Rights, that enshrining a fixed list of rights might mean that no other rights could exist. Which is actually pretty close to what happened. E.g. the right to freedom of speech is generally not enforced except as the government itself will not enact laws to restrict it. Individuals, corporations are still free to censure other individuals. So we don't have freedom of speech in that sense. Thanks, Bill of Rights! So maybe not the 'best way' of ensuring rights.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but the bill of rights is specific to actions taken by the government. Of course individuals and corporations are free to censure individuals on their platforms as long as they are not doing so at the direction of the government. A kid can't waive the constitution in their parent's face when they barge into their room without knocking, even though they have a right to privacy and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
    - gostsamo 3y ago
      Your comment has two separate arguments, if I'm not missing something: 1. rights do not exist outside of the constitution 2. freedom of speech is not enough as defined now.* Regarding 1, you should propose where else would rights be defined and defended. Currently, the issue could be mitigated, if the constitution is opened for additions and closed for deletions. Not absolutely, but sufficiently close to discourage abuse. Regarding freedom of speech, the issue is not the right itself, but the fact that matters of public debate happen on a few private properties. The right of property and personal liberty means that you cannot force someone to do your work for free, so if you want free public space, this space should be either provided by the government or it should be a shared public responsibility a.k.a distributed social network. * in the US, I'm not from there.

If you define the democratic principals in the constitution, and define them as fundamental, then the constitutional court would consider any lesser law as unconstitutional.

amelius 3y ago

Yes, but the people in favor of the law will just say that the senate approved of the law, and since they are democratically installed ...

gostsamo 3y ago
It does not matter, it is the constitutional court who decides if the law is compatible with the constitution, not the senate. E.g. if in the constitution it is written that judges must be elected with a popular vote, the senate cannot adopt a law saying that it is a president's prerogative. The fact that both senate and president are democratically elected does not matter, because their legitimacy is given by the constitution and therefore they cannot override it. So, the constitution is a protection, however, you should define well what a "democratic principal" is and how to recognize if something is not part of it. The best way is to assert a list of unalienable rights like right of property, access to information, and right of privacy, such that no law could be adopted which goes against them. The government being democratic is only a secondary defense, and not very reliable should add. * fictional example
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Curiously there was vehement argument at the time of the Bill of Rights, that enshrining a fixed list of rights might mean that no other rights could exist. Which is actually pretty close to what happened. E.g. the right to freedom of speech is generally not enforced except as the government itself will not enact laws to restrict it. Individuals, corporations are still free to censure other individuals. So we don't have freedom of speech in that sense. Thanks, Bill of Rights! So maybe not the 'best way' of ensuring rights.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but the bill of rights is specific to actions taken by the government. Of course individuals and corporations are free to censure individuals on their platforms as long as they are not doing so at the direction of the government. A kid can't waive the constitution in their parent's face when they barge into their room without knocking, even though they have a right to privacy and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
  - gostsamo 3y ago
    Your comment has two separate arguments, if I'm not missing something: 1. rights do not exist outside of the constitution 2. freedom of speech is not enough as defined now.* Regarding 1, you should propose where else would rights be defined and defended. Currently, the issue could be mitigated, if the constitution is opened for additions and closed for deletions. Not absolutely, but sufficiently close to discourage abuse. Regarding freedom of speech, the issue is not the right itself, but the fact that matters of public debate happen on a few private properties. The right of property and personal liberty means that you cannot force someone to do your work for free, so if you want free public space, this space should be either provided by the government or it should be a shared public responsibility a.k.a distributed social network. * in the US, I'm not from there.