In examining the sets of decision rules around the world, which one do you think is the best? For what reason? For example, in analyzing the Swedish Constitution, (in particular the "Instrument of Government") it seems to codify and guarantee whole areasof life and living that, for example, the U.S. Constitution doesn't come close to doing: "Art. 1. All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people. Swedish democracy is founded on the free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It shall be realised through a representative and parliamentary polity and through local self-government. Public power shall be exercised under the law. Art. 2. Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and the liberty and dignity of the private person. The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the private person shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public institutions to secure the right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care, social security, and a good living environment. The public institutions shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society. The public institutions shall secure equal rights for men and women and protect the private and family lives of private persons. Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own..." What's your favorite "Constitution" (or whatever set of nation-state decision-rules, however named),and why?
Well I'll be damned! Mel, I dissagree with most of what you post, and I take most of your sources with a grain of salt. But if you have taken the time to read and analize the constitution of all the countries in the world in order to discover which is the one that you find to be the best, then tonight I will drink a cold beer in your honor. To Universal, Salud!
Well, there are solid sources online that make comparative analysis easier; one hour dedicated to the preambles of each would bring you more up to speed than me... To continue the sharing, here's how Antigua and Barbuda's Constitution begins...do you have these guarantees in YOUR nation of origin? WHEREAS the People of Antigua and Barbuda- -Proclaim that they are a sovereign nation founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person, the entitlement of all persons to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, the position of the family in a society of free men and women and free institutions; -Respect the principles of social justice and, therefore, believe that the operation of their economic system should result in the material resources of their community being so distributed as to serve the common good, that there should be adequate means of livelihood for all, that labour should not be exploited or forced by economic necessity to operate in inhumane conditions but that there should be opportunity for advancement on the basis of recognition of merit, ability and integrity; -Assert their conviction that their happiness and prosperity can best be pursued in a democratic society in which all persons may, to the extent of their capacity, play some part in the national life; -Recognise that the law symbolises the public conscience, that every citizen owes to it an undivided allegiance not to be limited by any private views of justice or expediency and that the State is subject to the law; -Desire to establish a framework of supreme law within which to guarantee their inalienable human rights and freedoms, among them, the rights to liberty, property, security and legal redress of grievances, as well as freedom of speech, of the press and of assembly, subject only to the public interest...
In addition, imagine how Native Americans and the descendants of enslaved Africans or indentured servants, or any other group or body disenfranchised by the process of becoming America watched, as Americans, having read this: Preamble We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past; Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity. We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to - Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations. Added this to OUR Preamble: Preamble We, the people of the United States, Recognise the injustices of our past; Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and Believe that the United States belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity. We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to - Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and Build a united and democratic United States, able to take its rightful place as a leader among the family of nations. Would that erase any ofthe past? No. Would it indicate the real possibility of a national willingness to really come together and move forward (as opposed to the discreteness of our superb-urban lives, one unattached to another) to something brand new? Oh yes.
I also like aspects of the 1992 Constitution of Tibet-in-exile. For example: Article 3 Nature of the Tibetan Polity The future Tibetan polity shall uphold the principle of non-violence and shall endeavour to be a Free Social Welfare State with its politics guided by the Dharma, a Federal Democratic Republic; and the polity of the Tibetan Administration in-Exile shall conform to the provisions herein after specified. No amendments to this Charter shall be made except as specified in the Articles of Chapter XI of this Charter. Article 4 Principles of the Tibetan Administration It shall be the duty of the Tibetan Administration to adhere to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as specified by the United Nations, and to also urge and encourage all other countries of the world to respect and comply with such Declarations, and shall emphasize the promotion of the moral and material well-being of the Tibetan people, the safeguarding of their social, cultural, religious and political rights, and in particular, the ultimate achievement of their common goal. Ah, but its not, apparently, to be a free-for-all "Tibet-topia"... Article 8 Citizen of Tibet (1) All Tibetans born within the territory of Tibet and those born in other countries shall be eligible to be citizens of Tibet. Any person whose biological mother or biological father is of Tibetan descent has the right to become a citizen of Tibet; or (2) any Tibetan refugee who has had to adopt citizenship of another country under compelling circumstances may retain Tibetan citizenship provided he or she fulfills the provisions prescribed in Article 13 of this Charter; or (3) any person, although formally a citizen of another country, who has been legally married to a Tibetan national for more than three years, who desires to become a citizen of Tibet, may do so in accordance with the law passed by the Tibetan Assembly. (4) The Tibetan Assembly shall formulate laws of citizenship in order to enforce the above Articles. But the nonviolence appeals to me, of course: Article 7 Renunciation of Violence and the Use of Force Future Tibet shall remain a zone of peace and shall strive to disengage itself in the production of all destructive weapons, including Nuclear and Chemical; and, currently refrain from the use of all offensive methods as a means to achieve the common goal of Tibet, or for any other purpose.
Italian Constitution (art. 1-139) (Long and rigid) Don't know if it is the best, I'd guess no just out of probability. http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/it00t___.html Fundamental Principles Article 1 [Form of State] (1) Italy is a democratic republic based on labor. (2) The sovereignty belongs to the people who exercise it in the forms and limits of the constitution. Article 2 [Human Rights] The republic recognizes and guarantees the inviolable human rights, be it as an individual or in social groups expressing their personality, and it ensures the performance of the unalterable duty to political, economic, and social solidarity. Article 3 [Equality] (1) All citizens have equal social status and are equal before the law, without regard to their sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, and personal or social conditions. (2) It is the duty of the republic to remove all economic and social obstacles that, by limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, prevent full individual development and the participation of all workers in the political, economic, and social organization of the country. Article 4 [Work] (1) The republic recognizes the right of all citizens to work and promotes conditions to fulfill this right. (2) According to capability and choice, every citizen has the duty to undertake an activity or a function that will contribute to the material and moral progress of society. Article 5 [Local Autonomy] The republic, one and indivisible, recognizes and promotes local autonomy; it fully applies administrative decentralization of state services and adopts principles and methods of legislation meeting the requirements of autonomy and decentralization. Article 6 [Linguistic Minorities] The republic protects linguistic minorities by special laws. Article 7 [Relation between State and Church] (1) State and catholic church are, each within their own reign, independent and sovereign. (2) Their relationship is regulated by the lateran pacts. Amendments to these pacts which are accepted by both parties do not require the procedure of constitutional amendments. Article 8 [Religion] (1) Religious denominations are equally free before the law. (2) Denominations other than catholicism have the right to organize themselves according to their own by-laws, provided they do not conflict with the italian legal system. (3) Their relationship with the state is regulated by law, based on agreements with their representatives. Article 9 [Research and Culture] (1) The republic promotes cultural development and scientific and technical research. (2) It safeguards natural beauty and the historical and artistic heritage of the nation. Article 10 [International Law] (1) The legal system of italy conforms to the generally recognized principles of international law. (2) Legal regulation of the status of foreigners conforms to international rules and treaties. (3) Foreigners who are, in their own country, denied the actual exercise of those democratic freedoms guaranteed by the italian constitution, are entitled to the right to asylum under those conditions provided by law. (4) Foreigners may not be extradited for political offences. Article 11 [Repudiation of War] Italy repudiates war as an instrument offending the liberty of the peoples and as a means for settling international disputes; it agrees to limitations of sovereignty where they are necessary to allow for a legal system of peace and justice between nations, provided the principle of reciprocity is guaranteed; it promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends. Article 12 [Flag] The flag of the republic is the italian tricolor: green, white, and red, in three vertical bands of equal dimensions. (...) Article 42 [Property] (1) Property is public or private. Economic goods may belong to the state, to public bodies, or to private persons. (2) Private ownership is recognized and guaranteed by laws determining the manner of acquisition and enjoymend and its limits, in order to ensure its social function and to make it accessible to all. (3) Private property, in cases determined by law and with compensation, may be expropriated for reasons of common interest. (4) The law establishes the rules of legitimate and testamentary succession and its limits and the state's right to the heritage.
1) Making our Constitution a big "I'm sorry" is not going to heal anything. 2) We are already a leader among the family of nations 3) The U.S. Constitution contained amendments that gave everyone the same right but these amendments were not enforced. Don't blame the Constitution for non implementation (it's the thought that counts right?? right??) 4) In reference to the Swedish constitution, well it looks very nice, but the U.S Constitution has most of the same provisions (if a little more wordy). I do not believe that Socialized care and security are inalienable rights and I would not want them in a Constitution.
We certainly want to live in two different Americas, that much is indeed certain. btw, didnt your mommy teach you, you begin the healing process with "I'm sorry," not END it...that's just the beginning...
Nonsense. The issues go deeper than that. I don't feel responsible for the sins of my ancestors, why should I have to apologize for them, much less include an apology in the constitution--which is completely ridiculous. How is the country going to change by having this included...really now, not just feel good rhetoric. To reiterate, I do not feel that it is someone's inalienable right to have a hand out.
"The events which transpired five thousand years ago,five years ago or five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now, five years from now or five thousand years from now. All history is a current event." - Dr John Henrik Clarke You may not feel the need to apologize for past wrongs, but I do; I'd like to apologize for us all continuing to reflect and manifest the foundational sins of the nation, towards everyone, without redress. Redress is important. Only those who wish to avoid feelings of culpability, or who really hate those who suffered would ask them to forget the past, or not to seek redress in the most meaningful way possible. Its not just YOUR ancestors; its our shared past, b/c we both live here; in acknowledging that, neither all the guilt, nor all the responsibility lies with you...I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that as an American, I have an American past, shared with all Americans that is, in many ways, completely foul. You don't need to apologize...I will, b/c I know that where we were heavily informs where we are, and grounds us such that we know where we can go... "Completely ridiculous?" I find that applies to your fear, or your passive hate, towards actualizing a permanent redress of past wrongs that all can look to and say, "This is where we took a step towards enacting our own evolution." Of course, I can understand how fear and hate permeate any discussion that has to do with real growth and change, for those who fear and hate the prospect that they might have some growing and change to do, both personally and nationally...
Back to the Constitutional analysis: Uganda has an interesting section of guarantees in their 1995 Constitution: VI. Gender Balance and Fair Representation of Marginalised Groups The State shall ensure gender balance and fair representation of maginalised groups on all constitutional and other bodies. VII.Protection of The Aged The State shall make reasonable provision for the welfare and maintenance of the aged.
I hate to bail on you good folks, but your often cogent, and sometimes nightmarish opinions are keeping me from my doctoral research...I'm a BS addict, I'll admit it. So I've got to go cold turkey for until after Christ's made-up birthday... Peace, and hair grease, for the Middle East.
What a bizarre thread In asking who has the "best" constitution, all you are doing is looking at terms that you LIKE. That's a thread called "which constitution is written to my liking." The point of the constitution is to provide a working system of government for a nation. Whatever flowerly language is appended to that is irrelevant. You could write a great consitution for Rwanda, but if it doesn't work, what difference does it make? Same thing for "apologies". Would an apology to any ethnic group in our constitution make any difference? Of course not! The answer to "best" constitution is painfully obvious - its the US. Its not close by a mile. First, the US produced the very first constitution in the world. (No, the Magna Charta was not a constitution, in the same way that the 12 weren't either.) Second, the US constitution has successfully weathered every "constitutional controversy" it has ever been confronted with, with the possible exception of slavery. Third - it has been reinterpreted, changed and altered successfully enough to remain a very modern document, despite Clarence Thomas's best attempts. As a body of laws, it has so far proven to be the best of its kind in the world. Most of the constitutions you refer to are extremely new. To say the're the best is ludicrous - they might crumble in 15 years.
What do you mean by redress? Putting an apology in the Constitution? Slave reparations? There isn't anyone alive who lived through slavery. Racism is an ugly thing in all societies, but hollow apologies are not going to change how people think. You cannot mandate forgiveness, it is simply impossible. I don't think we should forget the past, but neither should we live in the past. The onus is just as much on the descendants of the victims as the descendants of the aggressors. Could you be more self-righteous??? I am all for discussions that promote growth and change, but I think it is silly to try to "mandate" growth and change. You try to brand me as a racist simply because I don't think an apology should be in the Constitution of the United States. Bravo.
Here is the constitution of the Federal Republic of Argentina, written in 1853: http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/ar00000_.html Some of you may not like the fact that it mentions God and endorses the Roman Catholic religion. And then there is a phrase which reads: 'The federal government shall foster European immigration'. But other than that it is a worthy document. Too bad it has often been ignored by our leaders, except to wipe their ass with it.
Sadly they called themselves Catholics. But some of our former leaders better hope that they die and there's no God, because the Christian concept of hell is too nice a place for what they deserve.
My favorite line is from the declaration of independence. "..that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" Apart from the reference to a "Creator", I think most people can admire these ideals. Even a Liberal Anti-war Belgian like me...
There's the difference. The Swedish constitution, among others, tries to guarantee the state will provide happiness. The US Constitution knows that it is impossible for the state to do so, and, should not do so. It is up to the individual. Even if the Government provides all of one's needs, that does not guarantee them happiness. In fact, it probably ensures the opposite.
Heh. 1. The Constitution doesn't promise anyone anything. Its just a document with laws in it. Any flowery language would be superfluous and irrelevant. 2. The declaration guarantees PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness. There's a difference. 3. It was originally meant to say property rather than happiness, to parrot John Locke. That would have fit in quite well with the eventual constitution, but it was changed due to slavery being such a thorny issue.
I have a great constitution. I can eat or drink anything and feel great the next mornig. I suggest you people adopt that.
Too funny. I will adopt that principle. Especially with the holidays coming up. I will declare that any action taken by my head, stomach, liver or any other member of my body which violates the aforementioned principle is unconstitutional.
The US Constitution failed to address whether states were allowed to leave the federation or not. It's understandable that the issue was put off, given how controversial the document was in 1788, but in retrospect it was a huge omission. Had one side or the other clearly been in the legal wrong in 1861, it's hard to imagine the Civil War continuing as long or with as much bloodshed. The separation of powers, and the amendment process, are probably the most significant procedural advantages of the Constitution. I believe it was Montsequieu's theories that made the difference between our constitutional republic and the ones in the old Soviet Union.