Constitution vs. the law?

Remove all ads!

Today's modern age and society is dominated by a simple ideal mainly democracy. With democracy comes social equality and rights that every person is entitled to.

However, how is it that people can use the constitution indiscriminately as a condom to rape the law? We are all supposed to be equal under the law not the constitution!

Should the law not be inviolate?

 

Which constitution are you referring to?

 

The Constitution is the one document that states what we collectively agree on as a people (some would use the word society instead). All the laws that follow must comply with the basic tenets that are listed in it. It really takes a lot to make any additions or change it because, again, they must represent the full-weight of the People. It is a protection, or guarantee that the people have against the awesome power of centralized government.

IMO, the Constitution in my country is under terrible duress, as the current regime seems to have little regard for it (both of the so called Patriot Acts). It could be big trouble if this trend continues, not just for us here, but for most of the free world - and I'm really not exaggerationing when I say that. The next election here will determine if this trend away from the Constitution will conitnue, but I have great faith in the American people and in their love for our basic liberties and freedoms.

 

Do you have anything particular in mind? That's pretty unfocused.

And, a constitution is law. You're creating a weird dichotomy that is hard to make sense of unless you expound on what you've said.

 

DMC - I'm really surprised by that "leave it to the states" mentality. That's a huge statement from someone who lives in a state as messed up as CA. I'm not attacking the place you live, believe me TX is just as bad, but it's just that given recent events I'm surprised you trust them with so much power. I'm glad that the Fed. government can keep in half-n-eye on those fools here in Austin. Otherwise things would get really out of hand. As I'm sure you could guess, I'm an admirer of FDR and his New Deal policies.

I think that the Founding Brothers would be horrified by the fools and incompetents that are managing our states these days.

 

Let me ask you this, DMC: Do you really believe that local politicans are any less corrupt? One only has to look at the incredible amount of waste and mismanagement that goes on at the state level to want to move somewhere else. But where? Maybe Europe. I'm sorry, I can't agree.

As for the last 150 years, well, there were some huge changes - women got the contitutional right to vote, and slavery was abolished. Both of these actions were in perfect keeping with the orginal document, with its emphasis on equality. And it was the Federal Government that had to push George Wallace out of the doorway of a schoolhouse in Alabama just to let a black child in the door. Only a little bit of the "state's rights" stuff goes along way with me.

I think some of your criticisms of the Federal Government are certainly valid, but more power to the states is the wrong answer, IMHO.

 

On the constitution....the consitiution of the United States doesn't mean what it says...or what you or I think it says....simply stated the Constitution of the United States means whatever the Supreme Court of the US says that is means.

 

When I posted this thread I was specifically thinking of the my own constitution (South Africa) but I mean the same thing can be said for many other constitions.

For example: I have the right to freedom of expression even when it means that I can slander someones name up and down the wall provided that I can circumvent the fine print.

I have the right to freedom of religion even if it means that I practice something illegal.

I have the right to adequate housing which means that I can go squat on someones lawn and he can't get rid of me because no-one may be evicted from their home without a court order.

 

As the constitution, necessarily, is superior in rank ... she necessarily overrules it. It wouldn't make much sense when your constitution states: "Death penalty is abolished" while you later make a law stating that it's reintroduced ...

Unfortunately, the german Weimar constitution didn't see it that way, that allowed the Nazis to ignore it by deciding dissenting laws which were, after the rule "lex posterior", of higher rank. We learned from that mistake.

Constitutions are there to correct the lower ranking law, they state fundamental rights, the basic structure of the country. When a court rightly states that a law is unconstitutional - that's good - the constitution must not be overridden!

And when the constitution states your right to express your religion, and to practice it - that does *not* mean it is allowed even when it is illegal. Your basic rights conflict with that of others, there is always friction. There has to be a corrective that ensures you don't express yourself on cost of others. One of these correctives is the legality.

When it is illegal, then it can't be socially legitimate as criminal law typically sanctions antisocial behavior.

So, given you have a hypothetical religion that includes rape, or ritual murder, or simply violence against non-believers - that would not be covered by freedom of religion - because then you'd exercise it at other peoples expense.