long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[BobShaw]

We have no written Constitution in GB, AFAIK, but we do have zillions of laws.

Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution. We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.
The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.
It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event. The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.

It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.

[JoeKitchen]

Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution. We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.
The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.
It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event. The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.

It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.

You're picking and choosing here.  Although the last (27th) amendment added to our constitution was originally proposed in 1789 and took more then 200 years to get ratified, there have been several others proposed, debated and ratified in a relatively short period of time.  Many of them within the 20th century. 

[Farmer]

Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution.

GB doesn't have a written, single document constitution.  Constitutional matters are the history of numerous documents, decisions, laws, processes, etc. in GB.

We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.

Well, plenty of people have read it or at least portions of it.  We don't have a simple bill of rights like the US, but it's still quite readable.

The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.

It's far more than that.  It is what defines what powers a government(s) and the people have.  It is the authority from which all other authority flows.

It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event.

Again, not really.  It provides the basis upon which authority is granted to parties to enact laws and what those laws may cover and to what extent.  It doesn't prescribe that a certain act covers a certain event.

The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.

Yes, and the Westminster Parliamentary system is particularly good regarding those debates because every single sitting day the government is held accountable by the opposition.  At times it looks like a circus, but it's really a very important theatre.

It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.

Well, not 200 years - not by a long shot.  But constitutions are meant to be difficult to change to avoid the tyranny of the majority, among other things.  The problem is that by defining those rights that are special, it tends to de-emphasise any other even though the US constitution specifically grants all other rights to the people!  Whereas in our case, there is no constitutional freedom of speech, but there is a constitutional right of political expression and the High Court (equivalent of the SCotUS for our US friends), has taken that, plus the lack of a denial of freedom of speech through the constitution, to rule that there is a significant freedom of speech.  So, you can't slander or libel people and you can't talk about classified information and so on, but generally speaking you are free to say what you want if it doesn't incite crime.  It's not as strong as the US right, but it is a bit more flexible which is the point Bob has made well.

But to each their own.  We had 114 years of additional history and experience to draw upon when we created ours compared to the US.

[degrub]

Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution. We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.
The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.
It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event. The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.

It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.

I believe they have the "common law" rather than a constitution in the usual sense that we in the US have.

[BobShaw]

Well, not 200 years - not by a long shot.

Apparently the 27th and last amendment according to wiki took 202 years 7 months 10 days, but who's counting.
Yes, I have read the Oz Constitution and happy with your clarification. I was sort of summarising the effect.
A Bill of Rights tells you what you can do, forever.
A law tells you what you can't do. So if there is no law against it then you can do it, which includes free speech. i think that is a better system.

[James Clark]

Apparently the 27th and last amendment according to wiki took 202 years 7 months 10 days, but who's counting.
Yes, I have read the Oz Constitution and happy with your clarification. I was sort of summarising the effect.
A Bill of Rights tells you what you can do, forever.
A law tells you what you can't do. So if there is no law against it then you can do it, which includes free speech. i think that is a better system.

You're in rare company, Bob   This was the essentially the exact point made by some of our (the USA) founders in arguing AGAINST the inclusion of a "bill of rights."  The fear was (in part) exactly as you said - that by enumerating these specific rights it was feared that other rights not so enumerated could be argued not to exist.

Obviously they lost the day, but I'd argue that when our Constitutional "originalists" resort to purely textual arguments against things like a right to privacy, those who feared that the Bill of Rights could actually *limit* our rights have been proven to be at least partially correct.

Read more here.

[Farmer]

You're in rare company, Bob   This was the essentially the exact point made by some of our (the USA) founders in arguing AGAINST the inclusion of a "bill of rights."  The fear was (in part) exactly as you said - that by enumerating these specific rights it was feared that other rights not so enumerated could be argued not to exist.

Obviously they lost the day, but I'd argue that when our Constitutional "originalists" resort to purely textual arguments against things like a right to privacy, those who feared that the Bill of Rights could actually *limit* our rights have been proven to be at least partially correct.

Read more here.

You also have, what I consider absurd, views being presented along the lines of "there's no right to education" to block attempts at laws to mandate provision of education.  Seriously.

There's a very clear case to show that the bill of rights has over-emphasised many of those ahead of other things and prevented additional rights being acquired or exercised because the general "and all else" clause is often ignored.

[texshooter]

The Constitution is not God bestowed.  It can be changed when it should be.

Why do people (Rand Paul, et al.) care what its authors would have intended if alive today? They're dead!

[James Clark]

You also have, what I consider absurd, views being presented along the lines of "there's no right to education" to block attempts at laws to mandate provision of education.  Seriously.

There's a very clear case to show that the bill of rights has over-emphasised many of those ahead of other things and prevented additional rights being acquired or exercised because the general "and all else" clause is often ignored.

Agreed.  There's a bit more to it but I'm on a mobile device

[James Clark]

The Constitution is not God bestowed.  It can be changed when it should be.

Why do people (Rand Paul, et al.) care what its authors would have intended if alive today? They're dead!

Because their (the authors, not the textualists) enlightenment philosophies inform the basic understanding of the source of our fundamental rights. 

[Farmer]

Agreed.  There's a bit more to it but I'm on a mobile device

I know the pain when you have a lot you want to say - tiny screens are not so great :-)

[texshooter]

Because their (the authors, not the textualists) enlightenment philosophies inform the basic understanding of the source of our fundamental rights.

So we are suppose to engage in philosophical necromancy to divine whether James Madison would be down with bump stocks? Who cares, he's dead?  Besides, for all we know, he may have changed his mind by now.

[jeremyrh]

This article seems to summarise the situation:

https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/10/02/mass-shootings-unsolvable-problem-says-country-mass-shootings-problem/

[RSL]

Okay, let's look at mass shootings that are an unsolvable problem in the U.S., "the only country with a mass shooting problem" (Vegas is going to raise the U.S. total a bit, but not enough to change the comparisons):

Norway: 67 dead, total vics 100, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 1.94.

Switzerland:  14 dead, total vics 32, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 .40.

U.S.: 487 dead, total vics 992, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 .31.

I could go on with this, citing places like Mexico where the figures are out of sight.

Clearly we've got to keep those guns from going out and shooting up the place. If we can't get the guns to cooperate we need to jail them.

Hard as it may be to believe, this thread may actually be dumber than Trump II.

[Alan Klein]

The US Constitution doesn't grant rights to people.  The people have these "inalienable rights" as "God given".  Rather it limits the power of government.  For example, the 1st Amendment says: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 
Or in the gun case: 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In both Amendments, you see that it is the government that is limited.  Nothing is granted to the people.  They have these rights to begin with.  That's a powerful message.  It reminds government officials that they don't give anything to people.  They take things away, only if  the constitution allows them that power. 

The Constitution enumerates powers that the federal government (national in DC) has. Such things as maintaining an Army, making treaties, regulating interstate commerce.  It then says that those remaining powers not granted to the national government are left to the individual sovereign States, now 50, and then to the people themselves.  So the individual states which are also sovereign can have their own Constitutions and issue laws for state taxes, highway speed limits, state taxes, etc.  As long as the state law doesn't conflict with rights in the Consitution, the State follows the majority rules through their own legislatures.  All remaining power is left with the individual to do whatever they want to do. 

As Phil posted above, you don't want a Congress or legislature to change these laws by popular vote because then these rights can be washed away during a crisis or under emotional appeal of the majority.  The restriction and rights are there to protect the minority.  Majorities don't need protection because they have the vote to change the law.  That's why Nazi's can speak their mind even if 99.9% of the country disagree with what they have to say.  Or in the Las Vegas situation, if let's say 75% of the people in the country want to ban guns, the 2nd Amendment prevents Congress or the individual States from doing that.  The emotions of Las Vegas will not allow gun owners, a minority,  to lose their arms.  An Amendment to the Constitution is required.

I think the Constitution has been interpreted or mis-interpreted taking rights away from people in certain areas while limiting government more in other areas.  On balance, the Constitution seems to be working for us.  Our government hasn't been over thrown and we're still running strong after 230 years.

[Robert Roaldi]

There is nothing sacred about laws and regulations. They must constantly evolve because our societies evolve. We should not discard codified laws that have withstood the test of time but nor should we accept them without question either.

We no longer hang horse thieves. We don't imprison people who drink alcohol, but we continue to treat drug users as criminals. Inherent contradictions like that lead to all kinds of problems, just look around.

We shouldn't need to go to late night comedians for thoughtful comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxAsHhex10.

[Alan Klein]

There is nothing sacred about laws and regulations. They must constantly evolve because our societies evolve. We should not discard codified laws that have withstood the test of time but nor should we accept them without question either.

We no longer hang horse thieves. We don't imprison people who drink alcohol, but we continue to treat drug users as criminals. Inherent contradictions like that lead to all kinds of problems, just look around.

We shouldn't need to go to late night comedians for thoughtful comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxAsHhex10.

There's a difference between rights protected in the constitution and laws and regulations that effect people.  Nothing is stopping us from changing law that effect drug addicts or drunks.  We actually have done that.  In the case of addicts, there is more rehabilitation encourages so the laws have gotten less strict criminally.  On the other hand, drunk drivers now go to jail where before they were often let go with a slap on their wrist. .  So there the laws have gotten stricter, criminally because demnocratially, people have had their legislature change the law.  But these laws can be changed because there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government from restricting drug and alcohol use and applying penalties if used in a way that the people, democratically, decide they cannot be used as voted in their legislatures.  That right to use alcohol or drugs is not an "inherent right" as defined by the Constitution.   If you don't like the law, then change it. That's what a democracy is all about. 

By the way, you can still hang a horse thief if a state legislates that into law as a penalty.  It may be challenged constitutionally as "cruel and unusual punishment".  But that's another story.  Now if someone stole my camera...

[Robert Roaldi]

There's a difference between rights protected in the constitution and laws and regulations that effect people. 

I realize that there are legal differences that affect how easily (or not) they can be changed. Step and look at the bigger picture. They are all laws invented by man at a particular place and time, so of course they can be changed by people under which they are governed. None of those codified laws are sacred. It's your personal choice to treat them as sacred, nothing more.

As I have stated previously in another thread, the US Constitution did not prevent slavery or the genocide of American Indians and the 14th amendment did not prevent Jim Crow. These are not small things that just need a little tweaking.

[jeremyrh]

Hard as it may be to believe, this thread may actually be dumber than Trump II.

You're doing your best, that's for sure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/

[Alan Goldhammer]

What kind of regulations are you suggesting? 

1.) Mandatory background checks for all gun purchase irrespective of where they are bought (close the gun show loophole)
2.) Mandatory registration of all firearms going forward so that someone who is purchasing 19 weapons in one month can be identified (does anyone really need that many?)
3.) Ban all weapons capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a single loading (does anyone need to fire more than 10 rounds for either sporting or self defense purposes; police officers did quite well for a lot of years with six shot S&W revolvers)

These are the ones that quickly come to mind.  I am not advocating a limitation on the number of firearms one can own, only documenting things.  #1 was tried after Sandy Hook but the Senate Republicans filibustered it despite the fact that it got 54 votes (including some Republican votes).

Remember the 2nd Amendment was written during the time of muzzle loading rifles and hand guns that were neither accurate or safe.  the world has changed.