5 ms·

That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote. Even relying on people to vote no is not enough.

by bko 3mo ago

logicchains 3mo ago
Some European countries like Germany do, but the EU somehow can override those national constitutions.
- LtWorf 3mo ago
  It cannot. EU laws are completely useless and must be implemented by every government as a local law, which won't be more powerful than the constitution. The problem is that constitutional courts should then say the law was against the constitution and cancel it, but will that happen?
  - DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
    In theory, it can't. But in reality, it does in important cases. Germany has implemented EU sanctions against a German journalist, which deprive him and his family of the ability to conduct basically any economic activity in Germany or even to leave the country. He is not allowed to work. No one is allowed to pay him money. He has to petition the government every time he wants to access even a small amount of the money in his own bank account. The same restrictions apply to his close family members, because they are suspected of helping him survive financially. He is barred from crossing any border in Europe, including to leave. He has not been accused or convicted of anything in court. The only procedure that was required to hand down an economic death sentence was for the EU Commission to put his name on a list. The German government claims this is all okay, because the journalist can proactively challenge his sanction listing in Brussels. It's a years-long process that will require paying lawyers - using money he is not allowed to access. Needless to say, this is all highly unconstitutional. But the German government simply doesn't care. They just say they're implementing EU sanctions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru
    - patates 3mo ago
      Very weird case. I don't think anyone can survive here in Germany on a 503€ allowance he gets, and let alone having some probable but unproven ties to a state considered an enemy since only recently, I would find crippling someone to that degree harsh even for a convicted war criminal. He's apparently not even allowed to pay rent!
      - mike_hearn 3mo ago
        It's not that weird. There are other cases like it. Jacques Baud is a Swiss guy and was sanctioned by the EU Commission for "spreading Russian propaganda". At the time he was living in Brussels and the EU became a prison that he's not allowed to leave. https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/2025/article/ancien-espion-suisse-sanctionne-par-l-ue-conteste-les-accusations-pro-russes-29099379.html https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/2025/article/ancien-espion-su... The sanctions imposed on December 15 by the European Union against Jacques Baud and eleven other people include the freezing of their assets, a ban on doing business and bans on entering the EU. “I don’t have the right to return to Switzerland, or even to travel within the EU. I’m essentially being held against my will,” says Jacques Baud.
        patates 3mo ago
        Thanks for the example but there being other cases and me as an average person who follows the news having no idea about all this make it even weirder for me.
        mike_hearn 3mo ago
        European media is extremely pro EU and generally doesn't publish anything that might undermine support for it. This is one reason so many across Europe were baffled by Brexit. Their media kept them in the dark about problems the British media and politicians had spent decades highlighting.
        LtWorf 3mo ago
  - wojciii 3mo ago
    The Danish government is pro spying on its people. Currently we have numberplate recognition everywhere and logging of SMS and position info of phones. So this is just another step into the direction where we will be watched everywhere by our government in case we step out of line.
    - petesergeant 3mo ago
      > The Danish government is pro spying on its people. It would be more surprising if the organisation ultimately responsible for security did not want to.
      - LtWorf 3mo ago
        UK is full of cameras… is it any safer?
        petesergeant 3mo ago
        Than the UK without cameras? Probably?
  - petesergeant 3mo ago
    > EU laws are completely useless and must be implemented by every government as a local law This isn’t true. Regulations are directly applicable and don’t require national legislation; directives generally do. Individuals affected by a failure to implement a directive can complain to the European Commission, which can bring infringement proceedings against the member state and potentially seek financial penalties. EU law also has primacy over conflicting national law, and the CJEU’s position is that this includes constitutional provisions. Courts in Germany and Poland have challenged that position, but refusing to comply can put the countries in breach of their EU treaty obligations and lead to infringement proceedings and penalties.
- rowyourboat 3mo ago
  No, it can't. It's going to be an interesting legal challenge. Also, the European Court of Justice has, to the best of my knowledge, not ruled on this yet, either. The fact fight isn't over.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
solidsnack9000 3mo ago
I'm not sure any country actually has a Constitution with rights that are not up for a vote. There is generally a separate, harder procedure for changing the "basic law" or Constitution of a country -- for example, 2/3 of delegates or a 2/3 of states or something of that nature -- but I'd be surprised if there's a country where they have literally no way to change it at all.
- kevin_thibedeau 3mo ago
  The US constitution doesn't grant rights. It's sort of the whole deal which the rest of the western world doesn't really understand, much less Americans themselves.
  - nine_k 3mo ago
    Mr Madison, and a bunch of other Founding Fathers, might disagree a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
  - WatchDog 3mo ago
    The US constitution is one of the few constitutions that _does_ grant rights[0]. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
    - ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
      That page specifically says the constitution grants rights to the government and reserves the rights of the people. There is a lot in there about the case against the bill of rights, a big part of which is that itemizing the rights implies that they are limited to the list. Editing to clarify that this isn't just semantics: under the 'grant rights to the people' model, a government that grants one set of rights is just as legitimate as one that grants another. It was the position of the founders that governments which deny certain rights are infringing on the pre-existing rights of the people. This is the basis for their position on revolution.
XorNot 3mo ago
The sheer optimism of posting this as an American right now...
- oofdere 3mo ago
  our rights have largely held up even in the absurd world we live in, and the constitution continues to be a thorn on the side of those trying to abridge them. what we are seeing now is the conclusion of decades of eroding our rights and the tower still refuses to topple. though of course we're going to have a lot of work to do fixing it up after all is said and done.
  - int_19h 3mo ago
    Have you seen Wickard v. Filburn?
  - MaxwellJensen 3mo ago
    Have you heard of the Patriot Act?
    - darig 3mo ago
      [dead]
    - ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
      Have you heard of ACLU v. Clapper, HLP v. DoJ, Doe v. Ashcroft, or US v. Moalin? Parent acknowledges decades of degradation and points to thorns like these.
LtWorf 3mo ago
We already have a constitution like that in Italy, not that anyone cares to enforce it though…

That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote. Even relying on people to vote no is not enough.

by bko 3mo ago

That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote. Even relying on people to vote no is not enough.

logicchains 3mo ago

Some European countries like Germany do, but the EU somehow can override those national constitutions.

LtWorf 3mo ago
It cannot. EU laws are completely useless and must be implemented by every government as a local law, which won't be more powerful than the constitution. The problem is that constitutional courts should then say the law was against the constitution and cancel it, but will that happen?
- DiogenesKynikos 3mo ago
  In theory, it can't. But in reality, it does in important cases. Germany has implemented EU sanctions against a German journalist, which deprive him and his family of the ability to conduct basically any economic activity in Germany or even to leave the country. He is not allowed to work. No one is allowed to pay him money. He has to petition the government every time he wants to access even a small amount of the money in his own bank account. The same restrictions apply to his close family members, because they are suspected of helping him survive financially. He is barred from crossing any border in Europe, including to leave. He has not been accused or convicted of anything in court. The only procedure that was required to hand down an economic death sentence was for the EU Commission to put his name on a list. The German government claims this is all okay, because the journalist can proactively challenge his sanction listing in Brussels. It's a years-long process that will require paying lawyers - using money he is not allowed to access. Needless to say, this is all highly unconstitutional. But the German government simply doesn't care. They just say they're implementing EU sanctions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru
  - patates 3mo ago
    Very weird case. I don't think anyone can survive here in Germany on a 503€ allowance he gets, and let alone having some probable but unproven ties to a state considered an enemy since only recently, I would find crippling someone to that degree harsh even for a convicted war criminal. He's apparently not even allowed to pay rent!
    - mike_hearn 3mo ago
      It's not that weird. There are other cases like it. Jacques Baud is a Swiss guy and was sanctioned by the EU Commission for "spreading Russian propaganda". At the time he was living in Brussels and the EU became a prison that he's not allowed to leave. https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/2025/article/ancien-espion-suisse-sanctionne-par-l-ue-conteste-les-accusations-pro-russes-29099379.html https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/2025/article/ancien-espion-su... The sanctions imposed on December 15 by the European Union against Jacques Baud and eleven other people include the freezing of their assets, a ban on doing business and bans on entering the EU. “I don’t have the right to return to Switzerland, or even to travel within the EU. I’m essentially being held against my will,” says Jacques Baud.
      - patates 3mo ago
        Thanks for the example but there being other cases and me as an average person who follows the news having no idea about all this make it even weirder for me.
        mike_hearn 3mo ago
        European media is extremely pro EU and generally doesn't publish anything that might undermine support for it. This is one reason so many across Europe were baffled by Brexit. Their media kept them in the dark about problems the British media and politicians had spent decades highlighting.
        LtWorf 3mo ago
- wojciii 3mo ago
  The Danish government is pro spying on its people. Currently we have numberplate recognition everywhere and logging of SMS and position info of phones. So this is just another step into the direction where we will be watched everywhere by our government in case we step out of line.
  - petesergeant 3mo ago
    > The Danish government is pro spying on its people. It would be more surprising if the organisation ultimately responsible for security did not want to.
    - LtWorf 3mo ago
      UK is full of cameras… is it any safer?
      - petesergeant 3mo ago
        Than the UK without cameras? Probably?
- petesergeant 3mo ago
  > EU laws are completely useless and must be implemented by every government as a local law This isn’t true. Regulations are directly applicable and don’t require national legislation; directives generally do. Individuals affected by a failure to implement a directive can complain to the European Commission, which can bring infringement proceedings against the member state and potentially seek financial penalties. EU law also has primacy over conflicting national law, and the CJEU’s position is that this includes constitutional provisions. Courts in Germany and Poland have challenged that position, but refusing to comply can put the countries in breach of their EU treaty obligations and lead to infringement proceedings and penalties.
rowyourboat 3mo ago
No, it can't. It's going to be an interesting legal challenge. Also, the European Court of Justice has, to the best of my knowledge, not ruled on this yet, either. The fact fight isn't over.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

solidsnack9000 3mo ago

I'm not sure any country actually has a Constitution with rights that are not up for a vote. There is generally a separate, harder procedure for changing the "basic law" or Constitution of a country -- for example, 2/3 of delegates or a 2/3 of states or something of that nature -- but I'd be surprised if there's a country where they have literally no way to change it at all.

kevin_thibedeau 3mo ago
The US constitution doesn't grant rights. It's sort of the whole deal which the rest of the western world doesn't really understand, much less Americans themselves.
- nine_k 3mo ago
  Mr Madison, and a bunch of other Founding Fathers, might disagree a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- WatchDog 3mo ago
  The US constitution is one of the few constitutions that _does_ grant rights[0]. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
  - ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
    That page specifically says the constitution grants rights to the government and reserves the rights of the people. There is a lot in there about the case against the bill of rights, a big part of which is that itemizing the rights implies that they are limited to the list. Editing to clarify that this isn't just semantics: under the 'grant rights to the people' model, a government that grants one set of rights is just as legitimate as one that grants another. It was the position of the founders that governments which deny certain rights are infringing on the pre-existing rights of the people. This is the basis for their position on revolution.

XorNot 3mo ago

The sheer optimism of posting this as an American right now...

oofdere 3mo ago
our rights have largely held up even in the absurd world we live in, and the constitution continues to be a thorn on the side of those trying to abridge them. what we are seeing now is the conclusion of decades of eroding our rights and the tower still refuses to topple. though of course we're going to have a lot of work to do fixing it up after all is said and done.
- int_19h 3mo ago
  Have you seen Wickard v. Filburn?
- MaxwellJensen 3mo ago
  Have you heard of the Patriot Act?
  - darig 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
    Have you heard of ACLU v. Clapper, HLP v. DoJ, Doe v. Ashcroft, or US v. Moalin? Parent acknowledges decades of degradation and points to thorns like these.

LtWorf 3mo ago

We already have a constitution like that in Italy, not that anyone cares to enforce it though…