| From: | Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: flaming Americans (was: Re: Renegade's Gun Mod's) |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Apr 1995 01:58:40 -0700 |
> Sorry, Eve, but the US constitution DOES need modernising. It's just that
> no-one wants to call a Constitutional Convention, cause no-one knows what
> would happen. You could end up with something massively unexpected, like
> abortion issues and stuff determined in the constitution.
This is the sort of thing someone that doesn't understand the
Constitution of the United States would say.
If you were to study U.S. Constitutional law for many, many years
(like my father has), you would realize that the fundamental paradigm of
said document is not to provide a Napoleonic Code, but rather to provide
in writing some general principles and guidelines for sane government.
You will not understand this until you have read _The Federalist Papers_,
_The Declaration of Independence_, _The Constitution of the United
States_, and many other historical documents.
The Napoleonic Code, and the Code of Hammurabi and many other
legal systems tries to spell out appropriate penalties for certain
crimes. These legal systems are not about justice, they are about
governmentally mandated torts and restitution. The American legal
system, on the other hand, has the entire Civil Torts section of the law,
built up case by case.
I'm not claiming the American legal system and the Constitution
is perfect, but there are fine points about what are general principles
and rights and what are mundane statutes. That's why there's a _Bill of
Rights_. Many countries, such as the U.K., have no such thing. One is a
*subject* of the government, not a citizen.
In general, one needs to consult the facts and do research before
making blanket, generalized statements.
> Heck, the Australian constituion needs modernising, and it's less than half
> the age of yours.
Since I do not know Australian law, and you do not seem to be an
Australian lawyer (or barrister, I suppose) this statement is unprovable,
and hence useless. But if you have more facts about it, by all means
please inform me (off-line).
> -- > Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html
