Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum

Life

  • entries
    599
  • comments
    2,215
  • views
    77,014

questions about your silly legal system

Josh

442 views

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Specifically:

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

 

How on earth are 'exceptions' to your freedom of speech compatible with your constitution that specifically states that 'abridging the freedom of speech' is unacceptable?



16 Comments


Recommended Comments

doesn't it undermine the concept of a codified constitution if you let it be superseded by case history?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Thats not MY silly legal system.

In my silly legal system the single house governement comes up with ridiculous & badly written legislation in a dream, rams it through a Parliament they control by a huge majority , then abuses the legal community, judiciary & poice forces if things don't go exactly as they imagined. Meanwhile they sabotage any systems that may limit or practice oversight of their actions because thay are "inefficient" (read: they dont agree with me).

Later the boy wonder Attourney General (politician) prances around complaining that the sentences are insufficient or that judges arent doing it "right" & imposes sentences without legal basis, except where they might have jammed new legislation through last night because they felt like it.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Because Congress, that's why.

Everyone else can infringe your rights all they want.

Just, Congress can't.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Lol Josh where are you from? Learn a thing or two about the US before you try and criticize it.

Share this comment


Link to comment

doesn't it undermine the concept of a codified constitution if you let it be superseded by case history?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Because Congress, that's why.

Everyone else can infringe your rights all they want.

Just, Congress can't.

 

if you let case history supersede the constitution what's the point of having one

Share this comment


Link to comment

He's in the U.K I think. He always does this.

Aw maybe he's upset he doesn't have rights. :( Poor guy is even getting his porn censored.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Josh, on , said:

 

Amber Pyre, on , said:

 

Because Congress, that's why.

Everyone else can infringe your rights all they want.

Just, Congress can't.

 

if you let case history supersede the constitution what's the point of having one

Because in the constitution, it allows interpretation of the constitution to differ based on contemporary ideals. It's not meant to be the end all no-interpretation legal document forever until the end of time. It's designed to change as differing social environments demand as such.

 

Case history isn't superseding the constitution, it's following it.

 

I thought the whole point of codifying a constitution is that you don't trust future generations not to be utter idiots and so you need to provide them with a base legal document to be held as gospel.

 

If the constitution changes based on social environments, why have a codified constitution?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yes, the constitution serves as a base but to make it "The Law" for all eternity is just absolutely stupid. Society changes, the world evolves, as do relevant legal documents.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well yea, but that's why your govt has the ability to amend it with a supermajority, is it not? Don't you undermine the validity of that if your judges can just change it whenever they deem society has 'moved on' and parts of it are no longer relevant?

Share this comment


Link to comment

When your rights begin to infringe on the rights of others, your rights are limited for the good of society.

Share this comment


Link to comment

phoenix what is wrong with all your posts why does it keep asking me to approve them

Share this comment


Link to comment

Josh, on , said:

 

Well yea, but that's why your govt has the ability to amend it with a supermajority, is it not? Don't you undermine the validity of that if your judges can just change it whenever they deem society has 'moved on' and parts of it are no longer relevant?

Judges that are put in position by both multiple presidents and congress over the course of decades.

 

Checks and balance bro

 

No one branch/party has the ability to make significant changes. It works well, and prevents the BS that arises when one party controls congress. It is, ultimately, a system that is more fair than relying on constitutional amendments alone.

 

so the point of codifying the constitution is to stop certain legal staples of the time being overturned on the whims of those who are popular? and then the idea is that judges effectively moderate the constitution and (based on their experience/knowledge/etc.) get to decide when parts of the constitution become obsolete?

 

So the constitution isn't really about judges, it's just about the creation of new laws?

Share this comment


Link to comment

phoenix what is wrong with all your posts why does it keep asking me to approve them

 

 

I don't know. I just DON'T KNOW. :(

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.