BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

New Zealand doesn't have a constitution so I don't have to learn shit about it. Leaves me free to criticise others.

Venezuela has a constitution. They've had a bunch of them actually. A constitution isn't some type of wall ready to stop a brute force attack on rights. Perhaps the idea that the document and the rights outlined therein are sacred has prevented wild swings. Perhaps its because the three branches are so well-defined. But its not simply because we have a constitution.  That's actually really narrow-minded of you jay.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Venezuela has a constitution. They've had a bunch of them actually. A constitution isn't some type of wall ready to stop a brute force attack on rights. Perhaps the idea that the document and the rights outlined therein are sacred has prevented wild swings. Perhaps its because the three branches are so well-defined. But its not simply because we have a constitution.  That's actually really narrow-minded of you jay.

I'm convinced that its power is so prevalent for exactly the opposite reason. It's precisely because the line is so blurry that everyone is always interested in the debate and active in trying to protect what they believe to be the correct interpretation. The real trick is that it is just inexact enough that it allows this to happen. I think the author I'm poorly summarizing called it "calculated ambiguities." I heard this argument somewhere a while back, and honestly can't remember where I read it.

The laws are made by elected people, but ruled as legal/illegal by non-elected judges. I think its the right idea, even if a law has to go through layers upon layers of courts before it gets to the supreme court.

Actually our two party system isn't that polarized either. People just pretend it is.

Jay wrote:

Wait, so if you have no constitution, or a weak constitution as in Australia's case, what's to prevent your government from changing laws willy nilly in a drastic way? What would happen in the future if you entered into a situation where your two major parties weren't nearly identical? Sounds like a recipe for chaos as the laws of the country change with every Parliamentary election.

And yet here we are. (Page 63.)

And here.

I'm not entirely sure what not having a codified constitution has meant for NZ. The UK and Israel are in the same boat, not sure how if effects them either. I'm guessing that basically it doesn't mean a Hell of a lot.

As to what's to stop the Government from changing laws willy-nilly in a dramatic way? Well, democracy mostly. Elected leaders still have to abide by the people's wishes if they want to stay in the job longer than the next election.

Also the electoral system works in a way where the ruling party is unlikely to get a full majority in Parliament and has to work with minor parties to form a Coalition Government. This means Governments have to work and compromise with other parties and even with the Opposition in order to get legislation through the house.

There is also a de-facto constitutional of sorts with key statutes held above others, (though they are not formally entrenched,) and these are the first to be considered by the Governor General and/or judiciary in determining a new bill's legality. It's not a constitution in terms of a document you can pin to the wall and point at when shouting about what's most important but it fulfils its role.

It works here, it probably wouldn't somewhere like the US.

San francisco is probably the most polar big city in the US. That's unheard of everywhere in the US too. As someone who's searched craigslist for rooms in sf, I never saw this. I did see many 'must lean liberal' or other mentions like that in the description though. What you describe sounds a bit embellished though.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Hypothetically, if Obama just signed some random law to be effective immediately and didn't pass through the normal procedures who would stop him or who would stop those trying to enforce it? The Second Amendment pretty much enables the citizens to have the power over the government in that way. They mutually are in check. Does that make sense? I am not the most educated on the matter but that kind of makes sense to me.

the executive branch enforces (executes) the law that the Legislative branch (congress) writes; the president doesn't sign laws into existence, the supreme court interprets both law that congress writes and the actions the executive branch makes (case law).

you are so going to fail your citizenship test, say "hi" to zurich for me when they deport you.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

When you think about it the various constitutions of different countries around the world don't mean anything if the people in power aren't "kept in place" by the citizens. Hypothetically, if Obama just signed some random law to be effective immediately and didn't pass through the normal procedures who would stop him or who would stop those trying to enforce it? The Second Amendment pretty much enables the citizens to have the power over the government in that way. They mutually are in check. Does that make sense? I am not the most educated on the matter but that kind of makes sense to me.

It does, but only in the most extreme situations.  Popular opinion, elections, and the court system provide much better ways to deal with grievances than civil unrest.  That said, violent confrontation isn't out of the realm of possibility in any society.

Jaekus wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Actually our two party system isn't that polarized either. People just pretend it is.

I saw a forum about politics at a folk festival I attended over NYE, one of the speakers was former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke. One of the panelists said when he was in San Francisco looking for a room to rent for a few months he noticed many ads had (D) or (R) in them, meaning that you wouldn't live with a democrat if you were a republican and vice versa. I know everyone in the US is not like this but that is unheard of in Australia.

San Francisco is one of the most politically polarized places on the planet.

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Actually our two party system isn't that polarized either. People just pretend it is.

I saw a forum about politics at a folk festival I attended over NYE, one of the speakers was former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke. One of the panelists said when he was in San Francisco looking for a room to rent for a few months he noticed many ads had (D) or (R) in them, meaning that you wouldn't live with a democrat if you were a republican and vice versa. I know everyone in the US is not like this but that is unheard of in Australia.

San Francisco is one of the most politically polarized places on the planet.

they assassinated a gay councilman there!

with a concealed handgun!

Last edited by 13urnzz (2013-01-30 18:46:35)

Jay wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Hypothetically, if Obama just signed some random law to be effective immediately and didn't pass through the normal procedures who would stop him or who would stop those trying to enforce it? The Second Amendment pretty much enables the citizens to have the power over the government in that way. They mutually are in check. Does that make sense? I am not the most educated on the matter but that kind of makes sense to me.

the executive branch enforces (executes) the law that the Legislative branch (congress) writes; the president doesn't sign laws into existence, the supreme court interprets both law that congress writes and the actions the executive branch makes (case law).

you are so going to fail your citizenship test, say "hi" to zurich for me when they deport you.

Executive orders?

executive orders aren't law, they are executive orders. that's why they're called executive orders, and not law.