The Soviet constitution 1936

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10

Here's a great text. It's the Soviet constitution at the height of Stalin's terror. It all sounds great.

A reminder of how important it is to get all the constituent parts right for a liberal democracy to survive. It doesn't need much to fuck it up.

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10

Here's a great text. It's the Soviet constitution at the height of Stalin's terror. It all sounds great.

A reminder of how important it is to get all the constituent parts right for a liberal democracy to survive. It doesn't need much to fuck it up.

I rather think that to that which you refer is more inevitable. I'm more convinced by  Zeitgeist. That brings us to how the documents came to be. Now the fragility of them is less apparent due to what was going on around the time and place in which they came to be. We find evidence of this in the documents themselves.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Please note the signers are included in US Constitution.

 

[Perspicuo]

The unwritten constitution is from a certain P.O.V. more important. Every country has one. If a written constitution exists, the unwritten one are all the precedents, usage, customs, the economy, etc. Together they hold the key to how government works and where the country is going to.

 

[fromderinside]

No. Its openness. Openness you hear me. Openness.

I shit on precedence.

 

[BH]

Stalin's constitution even qoutes the Bible but that carried no headway with the religious folks.

 

[Trodon]

The unwritten constitution is from a certain P.O.V. more important. Every country has one. If a written constitution exists, the unwritten one are all the precedents, usage, customs, the economy, etc. Together they hold the key to how government works and where the country is going to.

According to the United States Constitution, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Currently most efforts to modify the tax system originate with the President.

 

[bilby]

The unwritten constitution is from a certain P.O.V. more important. Every country has one. If a written constitution exists, the unwritten one are all the precedents, usage, customs, the economy, etc. Together they hold the key to how government works and where the country is going to.

According to the United States Constitution, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Currently most efforts to modify the tax system originate with the President.

A "Bill for raising revenue", being a specific and well defined legislative instrument, is a very different thing to an "effort to modify the tax system".

According to the United States Constitution, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and yet there are laws against jaywalking. That's not a problem either.

 

[Perspicuo]

According to the United States Constitution, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Currently most efforts to modify the tax system originate with the President.

A "Bill for raising revenue", being a specific and well defined legislative instrument, is a very different thing to an "effort to modify the tax system".

According to the United States Constitution, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and yet there are laws against jaywalking. That's not a problem either.

Stupid law about revenue. Only the Executive would actually know what is needed. All the information must necessarily come from the Exec. So, why gag them? It is most practical for the tax plan to come from those who know how much and why.

Sent from my SM-N910H using Tapatalk

 

[fromderinside]

Stupid law about revenue. Only the Executive would actually know what is needed. All the information must necessarily come from the Exec. So, why gag them? It is most practical for the tax plan to come from those who know how much and why.

Sent from my SM-N910H using Tapatalk

In this case the stupid law is due to a smart balancing of individual motives and social needs. Truism: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Truism: bureaucracies tend to produce little or nothing. the founding fathers felt it was more of a threat to democracy for one to have all the power than it was form a committee to take sides and get nothing done. Truism: We are now in a time that tries men's souls. Since our founding power has moved slowly toward the executive for just the reasons you are protesting. Do you want Mussolini the get'er done or do you want Mussolini the tyrant? I'd rather the trains sometimes don't run on time thank you very much.

 

[Perspicuo]

Stupid law about revenue. Only the Executive would actually know what is needed. All the information must necessarily come from the Exec. So, why gag them? It is most practical for the tax plan to come from those who know how much and why.

Sent from my SM-N910H using Tapatalk

In this case the stupid law is due to a smart balancing of individual motives and social needs. Truism: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Truism: bureaucracies tend to produce little or nothing. the founding fathers felt it was more of a threat to democracy for one to have all the power than it was form a committee to take sides and get nothing done. Truism: We are now in a time that tries men's souls. Since our founding power has moved slowly toward the executive for just the reasons you are protesting. Do you want Mussolini the get'er done or do you want Mussolini the tyrant? I'd rather the trains sometimes don't run on time thank you very much.

They "felt", but they were wrong.

In most countries in the world (all the ones I know), the tax plan comes from the Executive and is approved or rejected by the parliament. Checks and balances.

 

[fromderinside]

They "felt", but they were wrong.

In most countries in the world (all the ones I know), the tax plan comes from the Executive and is approved or rejected by the parliament. Checks and balances.

Its a tough call in countries where the executive and legislative powers exist in one legislature as with Parliamentary governments. The executives are legislator and leader of the majority or plurality leaders. In countries with separate presidents like France and the US there is a negotiation between the leaders of the parties, the president and the minority party leadership leadership representatives except when taxes aren't treated as extraordinary requiring more than a simple majority to git'er done.

The budget originates with the house in the US is based on the belief that representatives in the House are more reflective of current sentiment than are the longer termed senators in the Senate. Whether a plan is recommended by the executive really is a nonstarter since it is the legislature that enacts and the president who accepts or rejects with provision for the legislature negate the rejection with a presidential veto override.

The process of making a law is legislating while the process of approving and implementing the law is executing.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10A reminder of how important it is to get all the constituent parts right for a liberal democracy to survive. It doesn't need much to fuck it up.

I have another reading: Laws are just ink on paper, those in power can make them do as they want. Go find the DRR constitution, another great example on how little those smears of ink mean.

In the US the constitution is deified, the writers are portrayed as mythical "founding fathers". This always amazed me but what amazes me more is that even skeptical and atheist Americans fall for the notion that this is some kind of magical artifact. It isn't, neither are other constitutions. A good example is how in the gun debate both sides like to debate the intent and meaning of the second amendment. As if this bit of text written by long dead (human!) people is more important that what your society needs now.

Compare it with the bible. People can make it say everything they like and they do, as most here will know. Same with laws, apologetics and legal argumentation are the same thing working with a different data set.

When a country or government fails or succeeds that has little to do with the constitution but a lot more with what people do with it. Or, if you will, what those that are governed are willing to let those that govern get away with.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have another reading: Laws are just ink on paper, those in power can make them do as they want. Go find the DRR constitution, another great example on how little those smears of ink mean.

In the US the constitution is deified, the writers are portrayed as mythical "founding fathers". This always amazed me but what amazes me more is that even skeptical and atheist Americans fall for the notion that this is some kind of magical artifact.

"Founding fathers" is a metaphor that turned into a cliche that turned into an unanalyzed compound word. Show me a god and a holy scripture that say the god and the scripture can be amended by 3/4 vote.

It isn't, neither are other constitutions. A good example is how in the gun debate both sides like to debate the intent and meaning of the second amendment. As if this bit of text written by long dead (human!) people is more important that what your society needs now.

That is a good example. What our society needs now is the same thing your society needs now: governments that don't get to do whatever they bloody well feel like at the moment. Sure, we might well be better off if a state could simply ban anyone but a cop from having a gun. But we would not be better off if a state had enough power to do it without a 3/4 vote by simply announcing that it doesn't have to follow the 3/4 vote rule because guns are bad m'kay and therefore "the right of the people" means a collective right the legislature chooses when to exercise -- because that would instantly make "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" go poof, and those rights are more important than nervousness about who has a gun. We regard a corrupt ruler on a power trip to be a greater threat than a neighbor with a rifle, and it's been our experience that insisting that the government follow the law is an effective means of protecting ourselves from that threat. Taking legal reasoning seriously has nothing to do with deifying the constitution or deifying the "founding fathers" and everything to do with simple practicality. Beats the heck out of having to cut off our king's head. So to all the people out there who want us disarmed: go pass a new constitutional amendment in Congress to repeal the 2nd amendment, elect me to the California legislature, and I'll vote to ratify it.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Well, that is my point brilliantly illustrated by Bomb#20. Thanks for that

 

[Harry Bosch]

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10A reminder of how important it is to get all the constituent parts right for a liberal democracy to survive. It doesn't need much to fuck it up.

I have another reading: Laws are just ink on paper, those in power can make them do as they want. Go find the DRR constitution, another great example on how little those smears of ink mean.

In the US the constitution is deified, the writers are portrayed as mythical "founding fathers". This always amazed me but what amazes me more is that even skeptical and atheist Americans fall for the notion that this is some kind of magical artifact. It isn't, neither are other constitutions. A good example is how in the gun debate both sides like to debate the intent and meaning of the second amendment. As if this bit of text written by long dead (human!) people is more important that what your society needs now.

Compare it with the bible. People can make it say everything they like and they do, as most here will know. Same with laws, apologetics and legal argumentation are the same thing working with a different data set.

When a country or government fails or succeeds that has little to do with the constitution but a lot more with what people do with it. Or, if you will, what those that are governed are willing to let those that govern get away with.

It's not that Americans feel that the constitution is sacred. Americans generally believe that laws should be written by congress. Congressmen are elected every two years. Justices are appointed for life.

 

[rjh01]

The problem about the written constitution not reflecting reality is not confined to dictatorships. The Australian constitution is far from reality. For example the GG has huge powers. But not in reality.

The problem with the Soviet constitution is that there was no independent group to enforce it.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

A "Bill for raising revenue", being a specific and well defined legislative instrument, is a very different thing to an "effort to modify the tax system".

According to the United States Constitution, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and yet there are laws against jaywalking. That's not a problem either.

Stupid law about revenue. Only the Executive would actually know what is needed. All the information must necessarily come from the Exec. So, why gag them? It is most practical for the tax plan to come from those who know how much and why.

Sent from my SM-N910H using Tapatalk

Why would the executive branch have more insight into tax concerns than the legislative? In the U.S. the President doesn't make the laws, his job is enforce them. He can introduce legislation through various means but representatives should be, and are expected to be more in touch with their constituencies than the President. For example, how would Obama be more familiar with the need for federal funding of highways in South Dakota than the representatives of that State?

What you propose is a system where all things concerning taxes be sent to the executive branch for evaluation and approval and then be put into law somehow. And even then, that wouldn't be information coming from the executive branch, but rather, to the executive branch.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you've written.