Student Expelled for Tweet

[regexcellent]

Probably not. The American constitution, is, in my view, brilliantly designed. The key aspect of it that makes it better than other constitutions is the fact that it pertains solely to matters of governmental power, and not governmental policy. That is the aspect I've been talking about.

[BlackCat]

HC has it exactly right. The "Basic Law" aspect of the constitution, stating how the government functions and elections are held, is separate from the enumeration of powers and the bill of rights. Article 1 Section 8 which lists the powers of the federal government forms a "whitelist" of things the government can do, while stating that anything necessary and proper to carry out such functions may also be done. The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

This is simply idiotic. The american constitution was written a couple of centuries ago and is outdated. If it was to be written today, it would look totally different.

[DaShi]

Ah goalposts. So movable and inconsistent with past statements.

[regexcellent]

HC has it exactly right. The "Basic Law" aspect of the constitution, stating how the government functions and elections are held, is separate from the enumeration of powers and the bill of rights. Article 1 Section 8 which lists the powers of the federal government forms a "whitelist" of things the government can do, while stating that anything necessary and proper to carry out such functions may also be done. The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

[Aeson]

Don't be obtuse. He's referring to the "bill of rights" part and not the "literal functioning of the government" part, which is present in all constitutions and generally followed regardless of the nature of the regime. There are two parts to most constitutions--the definition of the way the government works, and then the limitations on it/definition of rights. Reg is only referring to the latter.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm simply mocking a stupid argument.

Just because we choose to put "do this" in one part of our Constitution and "don't do this" in another doesn't mean it has to be that way. Not to mention that most "do this" can be reworded to "don't do this" and vice versa.

That said, reg clearly was trying to say that "do this" shouldn't be in the Constitution, as exhibited in his reply to BlackCat:

"The constitution has a list of powers that the federal government may exercise, and a list of things it's forbidden from doing" - reg

He fails to understand that the Constitution also has at least a few things that the government must do.

If a nation wanted to add "provide universal healthcare" to their "must do" list that is perfectly acceptable. It is far more acceptable than having some idiots of another nation tell them they can't do it for semantic or clause organization purposes.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes... damn our Constitution and it's clauses that say the government should hold elections, pay politicians, guarantee a republican form of government to every state, ect.

What were we thinking having a Constitution to tell our government what to do? OMG!?!?

Don't be obtuse. He's referring to the "bill of rights" part and not the "literal functioning of the government" part, which is present in all constitutions and generally followed regardless of the nature of the regime. There are two parts to most constitutions--the definition of the way the government works, and then the limitations on it/definition of rights. Reg is only referring to the latter.

[DaShi]

What?

How does that have anything to do with my post? Did you even read it? If you did, did you understand it? It's not that complicated.

You're just bad at expressing your opinions.

[Aeson]

Yes; it's not about whether guns are more or less worthy than health care, it's that the health care provision is mandating that the government take an action, as opposed to banning the government from taking an action.

Yes... damn our Constitution and it's clauses that say the government should hold elections, pay politicians, guarantee a republican form of government to every state, ect.

What were we thinking having a Constitution to tell our government what to do? OMG!?!?

[regexcellent]

What?

How does that have anything to do with my post? Did you even read it? If you did, did you understand it? It's not that complicated.

[DaShi]

Exactly, government should be killing people, not helping them.

[regexcellent]

You find it ridiculous that people would codify the right to healthcare into their fundemental rights, instead of the right to carry guns? I think you just summed up the difference between Europe and the US quite nicely.

Yes; it's not about whether guns are more or less worthy than health care, it's that the health care provision is mandating that the government take an action, as opposed to banning the government from taking an action.

[DaShi]

I find regie kind of ridiculous.

[kentonio]

I was half joking. That was a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has things like protections for labor unions built into it, as well as socialized medicine. I find that kind of ridiculous.

You find it ridiculous that people would codify the right to healthcare into their fundemental rights, instead of the right to carry guns? I think you just summed up the difference between Europe and the US quite nicely.

[regexcellent]

But isn't that the problem with your constitution ? It isn't a de facto legislation but one that are open for interpretation ? You are currently applying laws that most other countries would consider illegal simply because their constitution forbids it.

No. The constitution has a list of powers that the federal government may exercise, and a list of things it's forbidden from doing

That is pure BS.

I was half joking. That was a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has things like protections for labor unions built into it, as well as socialized medicine. I find that kind of ridiculous.

[BlackCat]

Lori, you've got to understand the European mindset on constitutions, basic laws, and individual rights. In many European countries, the constitution says what the government MUST do, so for instance it's conceivable for dumping toxic waste to be unconstitutional because of everyone's right to a clean environment.

That is pure BS.