/legal/

>>2660206
Rule of Law and democracy are possible without a constitution, but other checks and balances must be in order. That isn't to say these would be infallible, but neither is the constitution.

I wouldn't say it's impossible, some leaders are attempting to do just that. Erdogan wouldn't be an absolute monarch, but a presidentialistic system approaches such a state of affairs more than a parlamentaristic system does. This isn't good if you like checks and balances.

>>2660222
A constitutionalist system is possible without a constitution say with the presence of supreme court governing all that is happening. However, I believe such a system cannot exist currently, even if a country is governed by an absolute monarch, the power of the monarch will still be limited through the outside influence of international organizations, treaties and so on. When it comes to international law, the incorporation of a hierarchical structure is impossible due to differences in all of the interests involved and in a sense this reflects upon domestic laws. If you take domestic law without the international influence, yes, perhaps it is possible to construe a constitutionalist hierarchy, however, in the grander scheme I do not see a way for this to happen.

File: 1449022039514.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

Why do countries fuck themselves over by creating inflexible written constitutions?

>>2660467
Really? What countries do that? Every constitution I've ever read is deliberately vague, precisely because they want to avoid inflexibility.

>>2660484
They are, by their very nature due to them being written down, inflexible. Unwritten constitutional conventions are much better. There is no need to go through nonsense bureaucratic practices involving minimum vote percentages. Just look at the US constitution for one, the legal entrenchment of the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms is proof of how silly it can be to have a written constitution.

>>2660608
You know nothing about American conlaw, do you? What "legal entrenchment of the 2nd amendment?" While the Amendment itself has never been modified, it's been re-defined by the courts on at least 4 occasions I can think of, mostly to do with the practice of Incorporation, which is another completely unwritten convention that essentially got made up by the Supreme Court in the 1920s. Same thing with stuff like privacy rights being read into the 1st amendment. It's hardly inflexible.

>>2660621
I'm not American. I'm just saying it seems far harder for them to be re-interpreted.

I'm majoring in Law and I'm slowly coming to deal with written constitutions being shit and only serving the interests of politicians. I wish a nigga would tear it down.

>>2660608
>involving minimum vote percentages
Because the constitution must reflect the will of the people, not the will of whoever has a majority in the representative body. Parties are not voted in solely on one issue.

Not at all, I'd say the world is ready for a new constituional movement, but it would have to be one earned in blood.

I think our social passivity leads us more toward neo-feudalism. People are comfortable and don't care enough what happens

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

File: 1472018877252.jpg (161KB, 499x700px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 499x700px

I want to impale Hans Kelsen

>>2660653

gay

>>2660624
Burn it down, join the common law

File: canada.jpg (97KB, 945x500px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 945x500px

>>2660629
>neo-feudalism
>bad
Nothing wrong with being comfy

>>2660626
It should take judges alone. The fact that the US has a Supreme Court appointed by the executive wing of the government boggles my mind.