Re: EU Promotes Continent-Wide Censorship

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 5/22/06, Brian Azzopardi <brian () gfi com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't call anything you have a Constitution - for one, they're
> not.
>
> I hate to say this - but what a fscking idiot - yeah, personal I know.
> Sorry.

This convo has been taken off-list - but since you're calling me out...
 con·sti·tu·tion   (knst-tshn, -ty-)
n.
  1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing.
  2.
        1. The composition or structure of something; makeup.
        2. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong
constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
  3.
        1. The system of fundamental laws and principles that
prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or
another institution.
        2. The document in which such a system is recorded.
        3. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States,
framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.

I was being far to narrow in my interpretation of the word
"Constitution". I had not realized that the "Magna Carta" fell within
the term - in at least a general sense. The classical form of the word
over here, with the "c" capitalized, only refers to our Constitution.
We call it a constitution because that's what its titled. However, if
your calling me an idiot to make you feel superior - feel free.

> And why would I say that? Brian, you are so completely, flat-out wrong.
> You are commenting on things which you have not even the faintest ideas
> of. Even worse, you have not even bothered to look the basics up.

Such as?


> First things first - all states _must_ have a consitution, written (most
> countries) or unwritten (England), explicit (most countries, including
> England), or implicit (failed states, dictatorships).

Now that's pretty stupid. Why would the classic monarchy need a
document describing how the government is set up? I mean, after the
monarch has given up some control, or made promises to its subjects,
perhaps those have a need to be documented...but it still seems that
your definition of a constitution is too loose.

> A constitution fundamentally describes the relationship between the 3
> organs of power in a state - the executive, judiciary and the
> legislature.

Well, that certainly describes the US' form of government. Of course
there are a number of forms of government existing today - and many
more have existed in the past. Many (most perhaps) did not have a
division of powers, or a system of checks and balances. The founders
of this country set out to insure just such things and based our
system of government on several civilizations throughout history to
include the Roman Empire.


<snipped generalization of governments only being democracies,
dictatorships and "failed states" - which isn't really a "form" of
government so much as a "state", or condition, of a government...but
I'm the idiot without access to wikipedia>

Should interest you to know that I only recently learned that the UK
is classified as a Constitutional Monarchy. I've accepted my ignorance
on that having previously thought it something like a "parliamentary
monarchy". The US, of course, is a Constitutional Republic. The fact
that it is a CONSTITUTIONAL <blah> government is not a subtle matter.
It means that the GOVERNMENT'S ultimate authority comes from a
Constitution, in all matters unknown, consult the Constitution. I do
not yet know if the same can be said for the UK - I'll look into it on
my own at some point today if my off-list conversation doesn't provide
it for me.

> By explicit I mean that society and its institutions know the
> (potentially unwritten) constition and adhere to it. The consitution is
> not arbitrary and shifting, as it would be in a dictatorship / failed
> state.

That is the dumbest f0cking definition of "explicit I've ever
read..and it really burns my ass since its coming from someone who
wants to jump on MY idiocy over SEMANTICS!!

ex·plic·it   (k-splst)
adj.
  1.
        1. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.

The US Constitution is EXPLICIT. Without Amendment, the government is
under the control of its instruction. What you describe England as
having is... hell, I don't know what you would call it - but not a
"Constitution". Perhaps that's why its not in the definition -
EXPLICITLY.

> > Don't you, through your country's history, have to do this several
> more times just to get where you are now?
>
> WTF?!

WTF what? Pretty straight forward question if you ask me. In my
history classes I distinctly recall several civil uprisings occuring
in England (though they are most likely called something else) which
resulted in the King making new, written promises to his subjects.
There was even a "Bill of Rights" type of agreement that I recall
reading about...sating exactly what a serf's rights are or are not,
etc.. If you know, tell, if you don't, stfu!


> > what you call a Constitution (and its various counterparts)
>
> What a fool - what counterparts?

Well, if you were following the thread at all, with your superior
debating skills, you would have seen that he had brought up the Magna
Carta as a "for example".  He capitalized it so I assumed he meant THE
Magna Carta:
Mag·na Car·ta or Mag·na Char·ta   (mgn kärt)
n.
  1. The charter of English political and civil liberties granted by
King John at Runnymede in June 1215.
  2. A document or piece of legislation that serves as a guarantee of
basic rights.

As I said, I was and am under the impression this either wasn't the
first of such documents (definition number 2) or the last. Btw, this
document is most assuredly filled with IMPLICIT ideas (like the US
Bill of Rights) since *rights* can not be fully detailed in reasonable
space and time (though maybe some government, some day, ought to
try...making future amendments to only add rights, rather than
government powers).


> > Then I don't see how you can know that yours is better.
>
> Each constitution is a product of history and context - it is
> necessarily unique - such as the England's which has admirably withstood
> the test of time (until Blair came along, but that's a different
> matter). Where there have been imported constitutions, or weak ones
> (say, Bolivia), the country/state is usually a basket case.

<nevermind that you are no longer replying to me> England's
"constitution has NOT stood the test of time.

Screw replying to the rest of this message, your as ignorant as I ever
was, and you might even be stupid. So, in the name of giving us both a
lesson in English history (and to re-assert the memories of lessons
past for myself) I give you the most quoted site on this list -
wikipedia (some more comments follow the quoted text):

----------------------------------------
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or
queen reigns with limits to their power along with a governing body
(i.e. Parliament), giving rise to the modern adage "the Queen reigns
but does not rule". A constitutional monarchy was able to form in
England across different periods of history for a complex combination
of reasons: sometimes due to a lack of strong leadership, and at other
times due to strong leaders short of funding, who needed to raise
money to prosecute wars, and needed to address public grievances to
ensure this money was forthcoming. Historically, the English had not
believed in the "Divine Right of Kings": ever since Magna Carta in
1215, the monarchy had been regarded as a contractual political
instrument. In the 17th Century, abuse of power by the Stuart dynasty,
and their attempts to import the doctrine of "Divine Right" from
Scotland, caused the English to question the royal authority and
revive earlier safeguards against executive power. Parliament took
several key steps to limit the power of the King. They revived the
English instrument of impeachment, which held the King's ministers to
be responsible for his actions; hence the King's servants could be
executed for implementing unpopular policies. They forced Charles I to
sign the Petition of Right that re-affirmed that the King must go
through Parliament to enact new laws, taxes, etc. After signing the
Petition of Right, Charles I immediately ignored it, precipitating the
English Civil Wars, and the eventual beheading of the King for
treason. This sent a message to future monarchs of England that they
did not have absolute power. During Charles II reign Parliament passed
the Habeas Corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act said that any prisoner taken
by the King would be given a trial. This prevented the King from
simply removing his enemies by sending them to jail. When James II
took the throne many people did not appreciate it when he flaunted his
Catholicism. Therefore Parliament flexed its muscles once again by
asking William of Orange to overthrow the king. William and his wife
Mary came from the Netherlands and overthrew James II without
bloodshed. This was called the "Glorious Revolution". Once William and
Mary had gained control of the throne, they completely supported the
constitutional monarchy. Together they signed the Bill of Rights,
which severely limited the power of the king, and gave more freedom to
his subjects. One supporter of constitutional monarchy was John Locke.
He wrote in his "Treatises on Government" that a direct democracy is
the best form of government. He wrote that people are able to improve
and rule themselves, and that people have three main rights. These
rights are life, liberty, and property, and it is the government's job
to protect these rights. He also wrote that if the government is
unjust the people have the right to overthrow it, a doctrine that was
invoked during the American Revolution.

This evolution in thinking would eventually spawn such movements as
universal suffrage and political parties. By the mid 20th Century, the
political culture in Europe had shifted to the point where all
constitutional monarchs had been reduced to the status of effective
figureheads, with no effective power at all. Instead, it was the
democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime
minister who had become the true rulers of the nation. In many cases
even the monarchs themselves, who once sat at the very top of the
political and social hierarchy, were given the status of "servants of
the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian reality.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.
------------------------------------------

It should be noted that: 1) there are many iterations of a contract
between the monarchy and its subjects, as I thought, the first being
THE Magna Carta; 2) John Locke was borrowed from HEAVILY in the
forming of our government, to include our fist official document, the
Declaration of Independence - though we changed property to happiness
for some unknown reason; 3) England's form of government changed often
not out of some moral high ground you can now hold over the US, but
out of political expediency.

I'm going back to the off-list discussion where headway is actually
sorta being made and where we are hopefully over the childish calling
of names. Thanks - fun security posts continue...PLEASE!

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.