Wow. Just... wow.

[myrkul]

https://twitter.com/CSGV/statuses/198157362673106946

@CSGV @CletisStump So govt rounding up citizens based on relig/ethnic id would not warrant armd resistance if courts bless as constitutional

.@BrisketChuckle @CletisStump Correct. As long as the Const. is functioning as our system of gov't, there are peaceful methods for redress.

Discuss.

[Elwar]

That is the whole point of the voting system. Make the people think they have a voice and that they can change the system.


We need to remember that during the American Revolution 80% of the people were ok with going along with the British system. The small percentage that were willing to grab their guns and fight were a small group compared to the main population.

[Anon136]

maybe while we are at it we should sacrifice some virgins to the volcano god. i mean as long as 51% of people agree, i wouldn't want to do anything immoral after all.

[Alpaca John]

The small percentage that were willing to grab their guns and fight were a small group compared to the main population.

...and they grabbed their guns because they wanted a voting system.

[oakpacific]

The American founding fathers did not want independence that much as well, they wanted something like "Englishman's rights" and representatives in the British parliament, the problem was the British army was already on its way, and in order to secure French support so they can fight, they must be an independent nation, thus they declared it.

[Ekaros]

I find the rhetoric and reality very disturbing, specially when country has so much military power.

I mean North Korea is rather aggressive, but at least they are far away and have only a few nukes at best and haven't attacked outside very much...

[Alpaca John]

maybe while we are at it we should sacrifice some virgins to the volcano god. i mean as long as 51% of people agree, i wouldn't want to do anything immoral after all.

I don't want to get into morality, but this would be unconstitutional. In fact, the rights of minority's are arguably the main reason there is such a thing as a Constitution at all. It is in western society deemed to be a vital condition for popular sovereignty, and hence for the rightfulness of democratic process.

[oakpacific]

maybe while we are at it we should sacrifice some virgins to the volcano god. i mean as long as 51% of people agree, i wouldn't want to do anything immoral after all.

I don't want to get into morality, but this would be unconstitutional. In fact, the rights of minority's are arguably the main reason there is such a thing as a Constitution at all. It is in western society deemed to be a vital condition for popular sovereignty, and hence for the rightfulness of democratic process.

To what extent do they agree on this is doubtful, AFAIK U.S Constitution is one of a few that has some meaningful safeguard built in for the rights of minorities. In France for example, as long as it's approved by the parliament the minority is pretty much screwed. Examples including he hijab prohibition, and the criminalization of Armenian massacre denial speech.

[Ekaros]

How well have minorities been protected, and what will happen in future?

[Alpaca John]

maybe while we are at it we should sacrifice some virgins to the volcano god. i mean as long as 51% of people agree, i wouldn't want to do anything immoral after all.

I don't want to get into morality, but this would be unconstitutional. In fact, the rights of minority's are arguably the main reason there is such a thing as a Constitution at all. It is in western society deemed to be a vital condition for popular sovereignty, and hence for the rightfulness of democratic process.

To what extent do they agree on this is doubtful, AFAIK U.S Constitution is one of a few that has some meaningful safeguard built in for the rights of minorities. In France for example, as long as it's approved by the parliament the minority is pretty much screwed. Examples including he hijab prohibition, and the criminalization of Armenian massacre denial speech.

Have those cases held up in court? 'Cause that's what really matters, of course, in regard to the constitution.

The western tradition I speak of is basically the Enlightenment tradition, derived from the likes of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Kant. Ideals that instigated the American and - especially - the French Revolution. I'm not French and I do not know what the current French constitution says exactly, but I'm like 99,99% certain minority rights are protected, since such ideals were a major motive for the revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

Also, I don't think you can be part of the EU if such protections for minority's are not in place. This one I'm less than 99,99% sure on. (UK doesn't have a Constitution at all, so...)

As for the hijab, if this has stood up in court, my guess is that they claimed that hijabs suppress women, or something like that. Hence, they actually banned them to protect women (= 'minority') rights. You may agree or (like me) disagree, but if this issue (or the Armenian thing) did indeed hold up in court, it probably says more about the individual judge than anything else.

[oakpacific]

maybe while we are at it we should sacrifice some virgins to the volcano god. i mean as long as 51% of people agree, i wouldn't want to do anything immoral after all.

I don't want to get into morality, but this would be unconstitutional. In fact, the rights of minority's are arguably the main reason there is such a thing as a Constitution at all. It is in western society deemed to be a vital condition for popular sovereignty, and hence for the rightfulness of democratic process.

To what extent do they agree on this is doubtful, AFAIK U.S Constitution is one of a few that has some meaningful safeguard built in for the rights of minorities. In France for example, as long as it's approved by the parliament the minority is pretty much screwed. Examples including he hijab prohibition, and the criminalization of Armenian massacre denial speech.

Have those cases held up in court? 'Cause that's what really matters, of course, in regard to the constitution.

The western tradition I speak of is basically the Enlightenment tradition, derived from the likes of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Kant. Ideals that instigated the American and - especially - the French Revolution. I'm not French and I do not know what the current French constitution says exactly, but I'm like 99,99% certain minority rights are protected, since such ideals were a major motive for the revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

Also, I don't think you can be part of the EU if such protections for minority's are not in place. This one I'm less than 99,99% sure on. (UK doesn't have a Constitution at all, so...)

As for the hijab, if this has stood up in court, my guess is that they claimed that hijabs suppress women, or something like that. Hence, they actually banned them to protect women (= 'minority') rights. You may agree or (like me) disagree, but if this issue (or the Armenian thing) did indeed hold up in court, it probably says more about the individual judge than anything else.

I don't know much either, but I think the focus of the problem is how you prioritize people's rights(French seem to favor equality over freedom of speech, unlike the U.S Constitution), and if effective measures are built into the Constitution to make sure it's respected, U.S Constitution's 2/3 state legislature approval requirement for amendment is a pretty strong protection clause IMO.

The French Constitutional Council do work to check if parliament statutes are in conformation with the Constitution, but the justice selection process, I think, leaves a bit to be desired, from Wikipedia:

The Council is made up of former presidents of the Republic who have chosen to sit in the council (which they may not do if they become directly involved in politics), and nine other members who serve non-renewable terms of nine years, one third of whom are appointed every three years, three each by the president of the Republic, the president of the National Assembly, and the president of the Senate,.[35] The president of the Council is selected by the president of the Republic.

Following from the 2008 constitutional revision, appointments to the Council will be subject to a Parliamentary approval process (Constitution, articles 13 and 56). As of August 2009, these provisions are not operational yet since the relevant procedures have not yet been set in law.