Comments on: This Country Is Unconstitutional (Perhaps for the Best) http://southjerusalem.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/this-country-is-unconstitutional-perhaps-for-the-best/ A Progressive, Skeptical Blog on Israel, Judaism, Culture, Politics, and Literature Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:02:45 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Jon Kay http://southjerusalem.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/this-country-is-unconstitutional-perhaps-for-the-best/#comment-497 Jon Kay Tue, 13 May 2008 06:34:13 +0000 http://southjerusalem.com/?p=141#comment-497 Well, if you don't mind your govt only performing as well as the UK's, rightswise, then it's fine. You really do have more human rights in the US than in the UK. Some rights that've gone away in the UK or are decidedly weaker, on the evidence I've seen: Privacy (London is a Panopticon now) Free, political speech (hate speech legislation which gets struck down by our Court, and effectively is used against conservatives) Habeas corpus and trial by jury (an increasing list of types of prisoners are exempted, more CITIZENS by %pop than we have at Gitmo) Torture (citizens can be tortured in the UK during interrogation) The US has its own holes in these, but they seem narrower to me. I do give the credit to the framers of our constitution. The Bill of Rights IS important, but as important is the fact that the fact that they succeeded in setting things up so that each branch thinks of itself as equally important and working in tension with the rest. Judges tend to end up being properly suspicious of the Congress (the executive is more of a problem). And that's why much of the Bill of Rights is still in force. By contrast, the UK's PM is also head of Parliament, and the Law Lords are also a part of Parliament. Not much tension there.... That's why rights are weaker there. People who live in sparse states still look at the Senate as their protection from having things with their land by more numerous city slickers who don't understand their land issues or farming. The Senate has also worked out luckily for us - because its seats can't be gerrymandered, it's currently the moderate side of the Congress. The House is full of extremists of both sides that can't get things done to save their political lives. The lesson here is that it's good to raise barriers to half-thought-out measures. Well, if you don’t mind your govt only performing as well as the UK’s, rightswise, then it’s fine. You really do have more human rights in the US than in the UK. Some rights that’ve gone away in the UK or are decidedly weaker, on the evidence I’ve seen:

Privacy (London is a Panopticon now)
Free, political speech (hate speech legislation which gets struck down by
our Court, and effectively is used against conservatives)
Habeas corpus and trial by jury
(an increasing list of types of prisoners are exempted,
more CITIZENS by %pop than we have at Gitmo)
Torture (citizens can be tortured in the UK during interrogation)

The US has its own holes in these, but they seem narrower to me. I do give the credit to the framers of our constitution.

The Bill of Rights IS important, but as important is the fact that the fact that they succeeded in setting things up so that each branch thinks of itself as equally important and working in tension with the rest. Judges tend to end up being properly suspicious of the Congress (the executive is more of a problem). And that’s why much of the Bill of Rights is still in force.

By contrast, the UK’s PM is also head of Parliament, and the Law Lords are also a part of Parliament. Not much tension there…. That’s why rights are weaker there.

People who live in sparse states still look at the Senate as their protection from having things with their land by more numerous city slickers who don’t understand their land issues or farming. The Senate has also worked out luckily for us – because its seats can’t be gerrymandered, it’s currently the moderate side of the Congress. The House is full of extremists of both sides that can’t get things done to save their political lives.

The lesson here is that it’s good to raise barriers to half-thought-out measures.

]]> By: Ben http://southjerusalem.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/this-country-is-unconstitutional-perhaps-for-the-best/#comment-496 Ben Tue, 13 May 2008 00:24:31 +0000 http://southjerusalem.com/?p=141#comment-496 I think your examples of why the United States failing to uphold the true values of the Constitution through our Supreme Court interpreting a written Constitution are inherent problems to democracy and government. The fact that a nation has to have some core principles (as well as obscure laws) means that interpretations, even controversial ones, even wrong ones have to be made. As an American, I think that our written Constitution has advanced the cause of equal rights and democracy much more often than it has impeded them. Decisions like Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia or Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld and Miranda vs. Arizona were landmark cases that extended the rights of people at times when legislatively it would have been difficult or impossible to achieve the same reforms. I think your examples of why the United States failing to uphold the true values of the Constitution through our Supreme Court interpreting a written Constitution are inherent problems to democracy and government. The fact that a nation has to have some core principles (as well as obscure laws) means that interpretations, even controversial ones, even wrong ones have to be made. As an American, I think that our written Constitution has advanced the cause of equal rights and democracy much more often than it has impeded them. Decisions like Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia or Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld and Miranda vs. Arizona were landmark cases that extended the rights of people at times when legislatively it would have been difficult or impossible to achieve the same reforms.

]]> By: berger http://southjerusalem.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/this-country-is-unconstitutional-perhaps-for-the-best/#comment-492 berger Mon, 12 May 2008 14:57:25 +0000 http://southjerusalem.com/?p=141#comment-492 To me, the issue is less whether or not there is an actual constitution per se and more the lack of a set of common political precepts within Israeli society. The are some fundamental ideological tensions at work here that need to be sorted out, and in this sense it is the process of ratifying a constitution that would be the real benefit. ... The absence of a constitution is more the symptom than the disease. To me, the issue is less whether or not there is an actual constitution per se and more the lack of a set of common political precepts within Israeli society. The are some fundamental ideological tensions at work here that need to be sorted out, and in this sense it is the process of ratifying a constitution that would be the real benefit. … The absence of a constitution is more the symptom than the disease.

]]>