tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973059296342782173.post5068146156073599595..comments2023-09-24T17:23:34.758+01:00Comments on A girl walks into a bar...: Bill of Rights? I scoff in your badly drafted faceMelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09562627821162756791noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973059296342782173.post-14484922334343080112008-07-23T15:18:00.000+01:002008-07-23T15:18:00.000+01:00Ta Android, I'm going with rote learning now, not ...Ta Android, I'm going with rote learning now, not trying to understand anything! <BR/><BR/>The constitution is an old document, and trying to make it up to date requires a lot of intellectual and verbal gymnastics. The original drafters, esteemed as they were, weren't exactly thinking about a woman's fundamental right to an abortion, or whether or not positive discrimination could be justified. <BR/><BR/>They were all male, well-off slave drivers whose only concerns were freedom from the British and things like being 'forced to quarter soldiers in their houses'. The constitution was written for a specific purpose, and times have changed a lot since then. <BR/><BR/>Course, there is a method for changing the constitution - by amendment, but I don't think that's been done for a long time. Maybe since Prohibition. It requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate - which is a high threshold, but then if you make it any lower people can just graffiti all over the constitution! <BR/><BR/>So when the Supreme Court talks about the legislative intent of the drafters..it's all rubbish! They intended slavery, the death penalty...etc etc. <BR/><BR/>Most of my info I'm getting from Wikipedia at the moment actually! Which is a bit shameful, but the books I have all refer to things in terms of 'the Dormant Commerce Clause' or the 'privileges and immunities clause' etc etc, and as such presume a certain level of familiarity with all this stuff. Which I don't have. <BR/><BR/>Whereas good old Wikipedia presumes idiocy from its readers - good-o! <BR/><BR/>Minxy, tis true tis true - there just doesn't seem to be a good way to do it, is there? Any model seems open to abuse.Melhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09562627821162756791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973059296342782173.post-20066375530477688892008-07-23T11:06:00.000+01:002008-07-23T11:06:00.000+01:00I thought a written constitution would be much mor...I thought a written constitution would be much more logical... Nice to know that its just as badly organised as ours!!<BR/><BR/>LLPoppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01048245328095180792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973059296342782173.post-37907009296952315242008-07-22T10:40:00.000+01:002008-07-22T10:40:00.000+01:00A HAH!! so a written constitution is capable of bi...A HAH!! so a written constitution is capable of bieng just as much of a nightmare as an unwritten one!! Lets hear it for constitutional law ( which I rather liked when I studied it even if, in retrospect, repeated exposure to the concept of "Legal Wales" (D'oh. Imaginative Name, no?) comprehensively did my head in!!<BR/>I beg to differ with you as regards ECHR rights - some of them are a bit more bolshie than others - the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression like nothing better than a damned good punchup; poor old right to protection of life in law, and the prohibtions on slavery and torture on the other hand sit quietly weeping in the corner since no one accords them the respect they deserve.....Minxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374956155964328760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973059296342782173.post-25817878334590466132008-07-22T09:36:00.000+01:002008-07-22T09:36:00.000+01:00This all sounds really confusing. :o When wre they...This all sounds really confusing. :o When wre they going to change it?<BR/><BR/>Good luck to you, Mel!Androidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001994727389453144noreply@blogger.com