Is a constitution necessary?

Pompey · Aug 4, 2006, 10:53 AM

Constitutions are often regarded as a nations founding document. They enshrine basic rights for its citizen and lay out a set of values the country stands for. It controls who holds power and what limits there are to it, but is it really necessary?

New Zealand does not have a constitution; any law including the bill of rights can be overturned with a simple parliamentary majority. We are the only democracy not to have one (Israel and Britain dont technically have one, but both have other safeguards). I was wondering how much importance you guys place on the constitution of your countries. Do you think it provides a sense of national unity (are you proud of it)? Does it place un-necessary restrictions on executive power, when in the current climate the government needs an unrestricted hand to protect our collective security? How relevant is it in your lives? And most importantly, do you believe it protects your civil rights and the foundations of your country effectively?

SFOSOK · Aug 4, 2006, 11:54 AM

that is a pretty good question. While its a good tool to go by it possibly cannot last forever. A living constitution sport sthe claim that it adjusts to the time period.

A constitution though I think is probably creates more problems than it fixes as it the absolute source to look to for governments. It also can be interpreted differently. I think a group rather than a document would be more democratic.

Pompey · Aug 4, 2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

I think a group rather than a document would be more democratic.

Who would choose the group? What powers would they have? IF thy donr have unlimited authority, then dosent it imply the need for a constitution?

TheBlackCat · Aug 4, 2006, 02:49 PM

A constitution is definitely necessary. As has been seen constant times throughout history, ultimately in a representative government (and even in non-representative governments) it is the majority's will that determines what happens. However, if the majority desires something that tramples on the rights of the minorities (not necessarily minority ethnic groups, minority regions, opinions, religions, professions, etc also need protection), then without a constitution the government would have to allow that. Even with a constition this still happens but it is more difficult assuming people actually fight such actions. The constitution is a limit on government excess, yes, but it is not just to stop totalitarianism. It is also to prevent the government from following the majority will if the majority wishes something that violates the rights of others.

That was one of the serious problems the American colonies had with Great Britain. They were a minority group in terms of representation in parliament, and thus parliament simply ignored their opinons on matters. So they set up a system where minorities who did not have sufficient representation to protect their rights in that way could still have their rights protected: they established a set of rules aimed at a protecting the rights of minorities and established an organization, the courts, that are NOT answerable to the majority and thus can judge based on the merits of the case instead of what their constituents want. This prevents them from being unduly influenced by majority opinion when it tramples on the rights of minorities. However, they can only take action when someone files a grievance against an action, and even then they can only overturn existing laws. That is a large part of why we have a constitution and a seperation of powers. Children are often taught in schools that it is to prevent despotism, but that is only part of it. It is to prevent despotism by the government or by the majority.

Majorities do not really need their rights protected as much. Since they are in control of the government it is difficult for the government to do anything without their approval.

Aug 4, 2006, 10:53 AM	#1
Pompey DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 362 Rep Power: 0	Is a constitution necessary? Constitutions are often regarded as a nations founding document. They enshrine basic rights for its citizen and lay out a set of values the country stands for. It controls who holds power and what limits there are to it, but is it really necessary? New Zealand does not have a constitution; any law including the bill of rights can be overturned with a simple parliamentary majority. We are the only democracy not to have one (Israel and Britain dont technically have one, but both have other safeguards). I was wondering how much importance you guys place on the constitution of your countries. Do you think it provides a sense of national unity (are you proud of it)? Does it place un-necessary restrictions on executive power, when in the current climate the government needs an unrestricted hand to protect our collective security? How relevant is it in your lives? And most importantly, do you believe it protects your civil rights and the foundations of your country effectively? __________________ One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Aug 4, 2006, 11:54 AM	#2
SFOSOK 939 Goin Strong Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ontario Posts: 7,033 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	that is a pretty good question. While its a good tool to go by it possibly cannot last forever. A living constitution sport sthe claim that it adjusts to the time period. A constitution though I think is probably creates more problems than it fixes as it the absolute source to look to for governments. It also can be interpreted differently. I think a group rather than a document would be more democratic. __________________ Warning - Explicit Content Preceeding METAL!!

Aug 4, 2006, 02:49 PM	#4
TheBlackCat DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Searching for the Candle in the Dark Posts: 567 Rep Power: 0	A constitution is definitely necessary. As has been seen constant times throughout history, ultimately in a representative government (and even in non-representative governments) it is the majority's will that determines what happens. However, if the majority desires something that tramples on the rights of the minorities (not necessarily minority ethnic groups, minority regions, opinions, religions, professions, etc also need protection), then without a constitution the government would have to allow that. Even with a constition this still happens but it is more difficult assuming people actually fight such actions. The constitution is a limit on government excess, yes, but it is not just to stop totalitarianism. It is also to prevent the government from following the majority will if the majority wishes something that violates the rights of others. That was one of the serious problems the American colonies had with Great Britain. They were a minority group in terms of representation in parliament, and thus parliament simply ignored their opinons on matters. So they set up a system where minorities who did not have sufficient representation to protect their rights in that way could still have their rights protected: they established a set of rules aimed at a protecting the rights of minorities and established an organization, the courts, that are NOT answerable to the majority and thus can judge based on the merits of the case instead of what their constituents want. This prevents them from being unduly influenced by majority opinion when it tramples on the rights of minorities. However, they can only take action when someone files a grievance against an action, and even then they can only overturn existing laws. That is a large part of why we have a constitution and a seperation of powers. Children are often taught in schools that it is to prevent despotism, but that is only part of it. It is to prevent despotism by the government or by the majority. Majorities do not really need their rights protected as much. Since they are in control of the government it is difficult for the government to do anything without their approval. __________________ [color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color] -H. L. Mencken Last edited by TheBlackCat; Aug 4, 2006 at 02:56 PM.