-
The Grave Robber
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Null and Void?
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Next at the Palladium
February 9, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Into the Wilderness
December 4, 2012 | 64 comments
-
Al Gore’s College Days
November 12, 2012 | 23 comments
Constitutional Opinions
‘A Legal Backwater’
So many constitutions worldwide — and how many except ours recognize the right to keep and bear arms?
America is in danger “of becoming something of a legal backwater,” a justice of the High Court of Australia, Michael Kirby, is quoted as telling the New York Times. His comment is in a scoop that ran under the headline “?’We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World.” The story follows up on an interview Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave to Al-Hayat TV in Egypt. In the interview she said that were she drafting a constitution in the year 2012, “I would not look to the United States Constitution.” Instead she commended to her viewers the constitution of South Africa, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.
Justice Ginsburg’s remarks went viral on the web among those who thought they were inappropriate for a justice bound by oath—as every American official must be*—to support the Constitution. The New York Sun commented on them in an editorial, “Lost in Egypt,” suggesting she had missed an opportunity to take the discussion of law-giving all the way back to Sinai. But the New York Times’ dispatch opens up the question of how popular an example our Constitution is these days. The Times reporter, Adam Liptak, gained an advance look at a new study on precisely that topic. He quotes its authors, two law professors, as reporting that our Constitution “appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere.”
Mr. Liptak, in my view, is onto an important story here. One of the key features of these newfangled constitutions with which everyone is so smitten is that they are much longer than America’s parchment. In Canada’s constitution, which our friendly neighbor got around to writing only in 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, at more than 1,000 words, twice as long as our Bill of Rights, which has 482 words. The curious thing is that with all that verbiage, the Canadians failed to find space to provide for the right that one of our greatest constitutional commentators, St. George Tucker, called the “true palladium** of our liberty”—namely, the right to keep and bear arms.
“Why, that’s impossible!” you might exclaim. “No constitution writer could forget such a right.” But feature this. The South African bill of rights is more than ten times the length of ours. And in that vast verbiage there’s not one syllable protecting the right to keep and bear arms. The document covers equality, dignity, life, security of person, slavery, privacy, religion, expression, picketing, association, politics, citizenship, movement, occupation, labor relations, the environment, property, housing, health care, education, language, culture, and arrest, among other rights. But not so much as a peep about the palladium of our liberty.
Oh, and South Africa’s constitution states that the whole list of rights can be thrown into a cocked hat if there’s a state of emergency. But never mind, the European Convention on Human Rights appears to be even longer than South Africa’s—running to more than 5,000 words. Yet the Europeans couldn’t find room for the palladium of liberty, either. Mr. Liptak of the Times reports that only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions feature this one of the most basic rights. I cite this right only as an example of the problem with these hyper-long and detailed constitutions. When something is left out of a long list of rights, it tends to look less like an accident—given that they thought to list so much else.
If the American constitution is a rich painting done in simple, elegant strokes, the new constitutions à la mode are something out of Breugel, crowded with so many little, crabbed figures one has to hunt for any particular one of them. Finding a right becomes a constitutional version of “Where’s Waldo?” Yet the great attraction to the left in these long constitutions is that they are built less around one of our Founders’ most famous modi operandi, the idea of negative rights or restrictions on the government. These new constitutions are riddled with positive rights, meaning things the government must provide.
Our negative rights are worded like this: “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…” etc., etc. Positive rights are worded like this from the South African Constitution: “Everyone has the right to have access to a) health care services, including reproductive health care; b) sufficient food and water; and c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realization of each of these rights.”
No wonder a member of President Obama’s brain trust, Cass Sunstein, a law professor at Harvard, has called South Africa’s foundational law “the most admirable constitution in the world.” It’s just what the left is looking for these days, a system under which the government is not only permitted to do what the left wants but, at least in principle, required to do it. This is a feature of the so-called communitarian movement, in which the community outranks the individual. It is just breathtaking to see a paean to it coming from a justice of our own Supreme Court on the airwaves of another country.
THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST that Justice Ginsburg lacks for patriotism. I would not want to do that, even for a nanosecond. Some of the clips of her remarks that are rocketing around the web exclude a number of profound observations by her that are contained in the full interview. One is an essential point about constitutions generally, which is that, as she put it, “a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference.”
She also spoke about the Constitution’s preamble and the intention to form “a more perfect union.” She stressed the enduring nature of that quest. No one suggests that America’s Constitution could not be improved. The Bill of Rights, after all, was itself a series of amendments. All the more admirable our Constitution has become. Editorializing on Justice Ginsburg’s interview, the Sun said it has nothing against South Africa, Canada, Europe, and Australia. America may turn out to be a legal backwater, the Sun said in respect of Justice Kirby of Australia, “but if you want to take away our Constitution, you’ll have to pry it out of our cold, dead hands.”
About the Author
Seth Lipsky, founding editor of the New York Sun, is the author of The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide (Basic Books).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Seth Lipsky
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/24/a-legal-backwater
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Vox pop| 4.24.12 @ 8:36AM
Kirby is retired. His comments are of no legal weight.
DTOM!| 4.24.12 @ 1:13PM
Sort of like listening to Mel Gibson's father?
Quartermaster| 4.24.12 @ 7:25PM
We already are a legal backwater, but not because of what the judge from Oz thinks. Our legal system has been corrupted by the people who are supposedly the guardians of it, the Lawyers. The law is far too important to leave to Lawyers, and that's why we have the mess we have in the courts and in Congress.
2Anglico| 4.24.12 @ 9:08AM
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg was confirmed with the aid of most, if not all Republicans in the Senate. What do you expect from the head of the ACLU? She could write 1,000 words about how the 2nd Amendment does not say what the Founders said it meant.
Unless Republicans are willing to fight against people like Ginsberg, you can expect MORE of the same.
Occam's Tool| 4.24.12 @ 5:16PM
I lived in New Zealand for a year, and my job involved frequently deciding to pursue the involuntary treatment of psychotics. I found out a very interesting thing: in the Commonwealth rights were wrested away from the Soveriegn, and any that the individual does not specifically have still reside with Her Majesty's government; in the USA, the situation is theoretically reversed.
Makes all the difference in the world. Ginsberg is an ass.
Ret. Marine| 4.24.12 @ 9:20AM
O.K. VOX POX " his comments are of no legal weight", you are kidding aren't you. Since when do the words and actions of our forefathers, our own family members, relatives, and especially those who have suffered from these of "no legal weight" as you put it, ever get in the way of moral values, equal protection under laws, and I might add, these laws are of bibical interpetation, straight out of the forefathers, and our own family members of living a JUST life, in the here and now, if they are of no legal weight as you put it, I guess you take it's advice as nothing but nonesense if you actually understand why this article was written in the manner and fashion as is. So, it's okee doekkkky to just shum the responsibility of self preservation, against an over bloated, self serving segment ) liberal progressive=evil) of our society who wishes ( their own words, fundamentally transform) us to conform to their wishes, without a fight, I don't think so scooter, it appears as though you are the one with "no legal weight" to pine in on this conversation.
As I understand this by the numbers, there are some 24 million of us, active military, Ret., Millitary Reserve Officers Corps, Reserve units, family members, and saying nothing of the Law Enforcement Officers, and related activities of such organizations, that are in direct opposition to your " of no legal weight" attitude. Ask this question scooter, if you believe this is an answer of opinion of how things currently are, why then are there literally millions upon millions of us willing and able to fight to our deaths to protect this Constitution against all ENEMIES, Foreign or DOMESTIC, as perscribed in our Oaths of Office, do not see where this article would lead, have you no concern of it's natural outcome if it were ever attempted against us, We the Patriots, fool are born on a daily count, countless times the world over, but, it does take an ignorant rant such as you have remarked to not understand, or care of what it leads to. The article only states the obvious, with the rule of our laws, what good are laws, if you are the one making them up as you go along to get along, with those of a treasonous attitude? Remember these words, " those who are willing to give up essential liberties for the cause of their safety, are worthy of neither, go from us, for we wish not your council, your arms, take care to wear your chains of slavery, and may they weight upon you lightly as you lick the boot that suffers your breathing" get it?
History is replete with the aftemath of such despotic arrangements, one only has to look up the word alleigence, trust and truth to understand where this article leads to and why. Go in peace brother/sister, but, DO NOT TREAD UPON ME, I don't and will never live with a chain of repression upon my shoulders, nor will those of my family, go to the bank scooter, it has slave written all over it for you and your types. Semper Fi.
Von Mises Jr| 4.24.12 @ 10:01AM
G-d blesses you, Ret. Marine. I was too young when the draft existed for Vietnam, but I have lots of friends that are with me at your back.
Fox Pup is a coward and a boot licker. You are wasting time with him. He will sell his soul for an EBT card.
But we are with you brother. No little commie bastards are taking away my liberty or my guns while I am still breathing.
KennesawJack| 4.24.12 @ 11:25AM
Hey, Ret. Marine and Von, look beside you. That's me and my fellow Viet Nam vets (except the one named Kerry) standing there.
Dmac | 4.24.12 @ 5:42PM
We should alreay be marching on Washington. The Patriot Act was the begining of the end.
If, as the Obama administration likes to claim, that the war on terro has been won, then why is the TSA still frisking grandma and little five year old girls? Why are drones being flown over more and more American citites? Why is it no one has gone to jail for any of the corporate collapses? Too many questions and too many lies. Can anyone even remember when the last time out Congress passed a law that seemed remotely constitutional? Why does homeland security need 625 million rounds of ammo? Not the army, homeland security?
We should have starfted marching on Washington some time back, and the longer we wait, the worse its going to be, on us and on the politicians.
We can only hope that when we do march our govenors and generals will do what is required of them, stand down.
Drunken Sailor| 4.24.12 @ 2:52PM
Semper Fi, Devil Dog!! Got your back!!
(8404, retired)
Tomper| 4.24.12 @ 9:25AM
Ginsburg should be impeached.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 10:40AM
Not yet, wait until we have a President that won't replace her with someone worse.
Pelleas| 4.24.12 @ 11:05AM
ON WHAT GROUNDS, EXACTLY..EH..?
KennesawJack| 4.24.12 @ 11:27AM
Pellaes, back from Tel Aviv?
Pelleas| 4.24.12 @ 11:48AM
nope...I'm on the beach now--lol!
DTOM!| 4.24.12 @ 1:14PM
Impeached for failing to honor her oath to protect the Constitution.
Pelleas| 4.24.12 @ 6:50PM
I see NO evidence that Justice Ginsberg has done ANYTHING to disrespect The Constitution
Quartermaster| 4.24.12 @ 7:27PM
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Pelleas| 4.25.12 @ 3:45PM
YES I HAVE (..BEEN PAYING "ATTENTION")
Show me ONE issue that illustrates how Justice Ginsberg "disrespects" The U.S. Constitution--
AND-- just that she said that ANOTHER COUNTRY might want to use other forms for their OWN Constitution, does show disrespect for our form of Government, in the slightest!
Taterblade| 4.24.12 @ 1:38PM
For violating the oath she took to "...support & defend the Constitution..." Or is it okay to ignore an oath that is required to hold the office"?
Tim the Enchanter| 4.24.12 @ 2:32PM
When I saw that picture, the first thing that popped into my mind was a quote from a famous movie...
"We have found a witch! May we burn her?"
Dmac | 4.24.12 @ 5:45PM
and her little dog Kagan too!
Indy| 4.24.12 @ 9:25AM
Cass Sunstein - a man who embraces FDR's Second Bill of Rights, of course he loves the South Africa Constitution.
http://www.fdrheritage.org/bill_of_rights.htm
Americans are turning back to our Founding documents, we have awakened to see what we have lost. We have a President openly stating that he will go around Congress (and has), the words our President spoke to Medvedev were chilling, "after my election"...those words don't just apply to the Russian PM, they apply to everything and I mean everything...
Mike G| 4.24.12 @ 9:39AM
"If the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference."
That's the problem. There are too many people who don't care enough to find out what our Constitution says, so the politicians find themselves able to ignore it.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 10:43AM
That's because people are told all through school and then on into adult life that the Constitution is too complicated for normal people to understand it. The language makes it too difficult to understand what the Founders meant... bunch of bull from lawyers that want to rule everything. We should not have laws passed that are longer than our original founding document for crying out loud.
c. j. acworth| 4.24.12 @ 11:01AM
I graduated from high school in 1973, and even back then, I don't remember a single civics/history course that made much mention of the Constitution. When I become Dictator, that will change.
Too Late To Impeach| 4.24.12 @ 3:56PM
"When I become Dictator, that will change."
It would take a dictator to re-institute the Constitution, for as long as people are allowed to vote for money, I think you can forget it.
Dr. X| 4.24.12 @ 12:21PM
Precisely! The fat, stupid, moronic American imbecile preoccupied with porn, football, "Jerry Springer," "Ellen," and "Dancing With the Stars" can't possibly be bothered with the Constitution in between trips to the refrigerator to eat himself or herself into morbid obesity.
As long as the EBT and the Section 8 and the SSI keep coming, who gives a flying f__k about the Constitution?
Betina| 4.24.12 @ 9:49AM
Our constitution was grounded in the belief in natural law. God willing, the impediment known as Ruth Bader Ginsburg will soon succumb to that other law of nature.
Pelleas| 4.24.12 @ 11:08AM
Real "christian" of ya, betina-- ya dries up old prune-- wishing the death of someone( who is known to be suffering from Cancer) just because you disagree with her...
I wish the same on you, too, for that matter....
Riff Raff| 4.24.12 @ 11:16AM
You mean like Julianne Malveaux wishing that Clarence Thomas die of a heart attack?
Pelleas| 4.24.12 @ 11:27AM
I will not speak for anyone else's stupid comments, in that regard, riff-raff--as much as I detest Thomas, I would never wish him dead-- just off the Court, perhaps...
BUT-- HERE we have a creepy example of someone doing just that..AND , just because someone from the other side makes an asinine remark, does that justify betina make a similar hate-filled one, nu?
DTOM!| 4.24.12 @ 1:24PM
Betina made a prediction, conditioned on Divine Will, not her own. And do you think that observing that a seventy- nine year old will die soon is wishing her dead? It is not - Pelleas your comparison of Julianne's wishes that Clarence Thomas would die of a heart attack is completely different. Your urge to call it something else is your projection of your own attitude onto someone else.
"Projection" is a common behavior among radicals and socialists, and thieves. It's why thieves cannot trust one another - they see nothing wrong with stealing, from anybody, including each other.
Personally, irrespective of Ms. Bader-Ginsberg's disrespect of a document she personally swore to uphold and protect as a condition of her employment, I hope and pray for her continued good health, until Barack Hussein Obama is safely removed from the White House by our normal governance processes.
Impeaching him might be nice, but then we'd have to deal with Einstein Biden...
Riff Raff| 4.24.12 @ 1:33PM
I never said either comment was justified. But YOUR outrage is clearly selective. You brush aside Malveaux's remark as "asinine" but you are OUTRAGED!!! at Betina's comment. Tsk. Tsk.
Betina| 4.24.12 @ 4:41PM
In a war you don't wish your enemies well. Wake up from your slumber jerk off. We are at war without the guns. Yet. The woman is DEADLY. The rest of her should follow suit. Real soon.
Betina| 4.24.12 @ 7:16PM
You chide me for wishing a cancer sufferer to do a quick shuffle off this mortal coil and then you? Wish it upon me? Not very "touchy feely" are you. Oh that's right. You are one of the jackals who bare his fangs and spit rage on all around him who dare to point out that you are a fraud and emotionally unbalanced. And that's just for starters. Not very "Christian" of you.
Pelleas| 4.25.12 @ 11:28AM
Like YOU said , Ms,Buffoona:
It's a WAR..nu?--ROTFLMAO!
AND.. since I'm not "christian", I don't even have to pretend and be as hypocritical about my (lack of) faith , as you folk here generally are....
Louis Jenkins| 4.24.12 @ 9:51AM
The Constitution once again rears its ugly head up for the entire world to see. Yes, it is ugly because it is brief, as our writer says, and it is to the point. And it includes the owning of firearms by the last free citizens of the world. It was written by a bunch of neer do wells who are 240 years in the past. Men (not women) who didn't text, who didn't know how to browse the internet, men who could drive, or didn't even know how to turn on a television. They, instead, used their brains. How awful you may be thinking.
And what about the men and women who sacrifice everyday? What about the men and women who have died in the service of their country and Constitution? Do we throw out their memory with the dust? No we will not. There are a few of us that remember their honor, their deaths, and will not allow them to become a footnote in history. The US Constitution will prevail even if we end up throwing rocks for it. Make no mistake, we will die for it. Get that in your head Seth, and the next time the Pledge is said in public, stand up, and place your hand over your heart.
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.24.12 @ 10:11AM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, like all federal judges, serves for life "upon good behavior."
Why the hell isn't she being ousted from the bench for stating so baldly, in an international context, her dislike of the U.S. Constitution, a document she is sworn to uphold?
Is that behavior "good behavior" in these latter days? If so, perhaps the United States deserves to become a "legal backwater" until it gets its act together a little better.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 10:46AM
Two reasons. 1) An impeachment trial can be called by the House, but is run by the Senate. The Senate Dems MIGHT go along with it, if they thought they could get someone else confirmed fast enough, but odds are that won't happen. 2) We don't really want her gone yet, first we want a Republican in office that will confirm someone less Constitutionally radical (or at least someone that isn't as far left as Sotomayor and Kegan).
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.24.12 @ 10:16AM
The nice thing about OUR Constitution is that when it discusses rights, it ACKNOWLEDGES them and GUARANTEES them, it doesn't say it's creating them.
The reason why is when our Constitution was drafted, it was assumed that our rights were God-given and that our rights predate the Constitution and exist whether there's a Consitution or not. Therefore, our Founding Fathers intended that our rights exist OUTSIDE the Constitution, as ours not by law, but by act of God. So no amendment of the Constitution purporting to take away any right is effective to accomplish that, since our rights are not Constitutional but natural.
Anthony| 4.24.12 @ 10:42AM
Quite right, our Founders saw our rights as "unalienable", given by the Creator and guaranteed through man-made law.
Our Founders understood, as Edmund Burke did, that all governments over time morph into totalitarian states, as they usurp more and more control over people.
Leftists like Ginsburg cannot comprehend this concept as they are statists by nature. The very idea that our Founders prohibited what government can do is what sticks in the craw of these people.
This is why this election is for the very existence of America. Either we take back our country from these leftists elitists, or we are doomed to become the backwater as predicted.
I only wish Romney and the fools around him had some balls to comprehend America's dire circumstances and stand up for what is right, rather than for what is politically expedient.
Von Mises Jr| 4.24.12 @ 11:12AM
Bill and Anthony, you are both spot on. Week nine of Hillsdale Constitution series discusses this in great length. It boils down to the vision of Burke, Montesquieu, the founders, especially Jefferson understanding that man's nature is immutable. Human nature is the same today as it has been for thousands of years.
The enlightenment Philosophers such as Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche and later TR, Wilson and the progressives believed that man was malleable and current facts on the ground should determine societal choices.
But we see the evidence once again as Hillary and Barry told us that they "were the ones we have been waiting for." But in three years, they have almost destroyed the greatest nation in history. The jury is no longer out. These are not supermen with superior wisdom and virtue. They are base and crude totalitarians and among the least virtuous of the benighted human race.
Anthony| 4.24.12 @ 10:32AM
Von, I keep hearing about the Hillsdale College Constitutional seminars on Mark Levin. I really do need to do this.
I applaud your efforts in doing so.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 10:50AM
It's a good series. There is also a very long list of books, letters, and speeches to read that go along with it.
W| 4.24.12 @ 11:58AM
Anthony, Von, TB,
I agree with you.
The difference between our constitution and others is simple yet important.
We assume we have the right to free speech, assembly, bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches, and others as natural rights from God. These rights do not come from the government . The government is created to protect and guarantee our inalienable natural rights.
The constitutions of other countries read well because they mention numerous rights but implicit is that these rights come from the government.
Lefties like Ginsburg like this because it gives the government the power to decide rights and who gets these rights.
If Obama wins we can expect more Supreme Court judges like Ginsburg (Clinton appointee), Kagan,
and Sotomayor.
albert constantine jr.| 4.24.12 @ 11:46PM
The genius of our Constitution is that the various Articles establish which position in or branch of government has the authority to do enumerated powers, in order to check and balance the natural tendency of governments to overreach their authority over the people. The Bill of Rights further expresses what the government cannot do to the people to inhibit our God given rights and liberty. It is described by critics such as POTUS Obama and J. Ginsburg as a document of negative liberties. In that governments are much more effective in what they can do to you than for you, it wisely limits this.
The primary shortcoming of our Constitution is that in order to work properly, it has to be adhered to by our government and the people. This, unfortunately, seems to be a challenge to too many of our “leaders” today.
Harry the Horrible| 4.24.12 @ 10:21AM
Most "positive rights" are used to strangle freedom. The "right" to food, shelter, education, and medical care means that at least some, if not all, of the people must be forced to labor in involuntary servitude.
Naturally, any government using "positive rights" enslave its people will want to prevent them from any means of ending their slavery, i.e. arms.
The proper role of government is remove any obstacles that prevent people from looking after their own affairs. It is not the government's role to look after their affairs for them.
DTOM!| 4.24.12 @ 1:33PM
There can be no "right" to products, like food, shelter, or healthcare.
Why? Because goods like food, et. al. are the product of others' efforts, property, and resources. Thinking one has a 'right' to others' property is exactly de facto slavery!
I have always found it quite ironic how community organizer Barack Hussein Obama, is such a strong supporter the 'rights' of citizens to others' property, i.e. slavery!
Remember during the campaign debates in 2008 he identified health care as a "right?"
What a maroon!
Harry the Horrible| 4.24.12 @ 3:04PM
Sad part is, you'll find many "conservatives" who feel that these basics are right and that they" must" be provided to those who cannot provide themselves, even at the expense of involuntary servitude.
The truth is, Americans (except for Liberals) are very charitable. Most of the money that goes for "entitlements" disappears into little bureaucratic empires and only a small fraction reaches the intended recipients.
DTOM!| 4.24.12 @ 4:49PM
Roger all that.
Grant Johnson| 4.24.12 @ 10:32AM
The longer a constitution is, the more contradictions (real or invented) will be discovered, which government and willful elites will then use as license to insert whatever result they prefer and usurp power from the citizens in favor of the already overwhelming power of government. This is intentional. Tyranny is not restrained by a "right to housing" or whatever. Europe and Canada may have long constitutional listings of rights, including for example freedom of speech. But by simultaneously giving government not only the right but the duty of mothering their subjects, they invite abuses such as the PC inspired thought crimes and anti-blasphemy laws under which Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have been prosecuted recent years in Canada and under which Lars Hedegaard has just endured two years of state prosecution in Denmark (for remarks made in his own home). In other words, freedom of speech in these countries, despite their lengthy constitutions, is effectively dead, the subjects put on notice that unsanctioned expression will have the direst consequences.
There are two main ingredients in my mind to the success of the U.S. Constitution. The first is its brevity. While government still tries at every opportunity to misunderstand, phrases like "Congress shall make no law" is about as clear as it gets, and thus yields less to lawyerly BS than more lengthy and convoluted wording. The second main ingredient is foreshadowed in the Declaration of Independence, ("it is the right of the People to alter or abolish [abusive government]"), and enshrined in the Second Amendment, wherein the right of the people to the means of self-defense and resistance is acknowledged.
The lengthy constitutions now in vogue are admired by elites as they are designed to provide license to rule. The U.S. Constitution was designed to reserve power to the People, and to limit the rule of government and abuses that inevitably flow from such power.
gngottawa| 4.24.12 @ 10:37AM
The reason Canada's Charter of Rights is now the model around the world is exactly why America's isn't: it embraces all the individual rights of the US (minus the guns) but deftly balances them with responsibilities, it permits limits to rights where demonstrably justified, it restrains judicial activism by allowing legislatures to override crazy judicial decisions, it precludes political polarization of the judiciary a la US, it recognizes key collective interests (e.g. aboriginal rights) and the list goes on. If you disagree with me on the merits, go ahead but I dare you to try without resorting to the juvenile language of American exceptionalism.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 11:09AM
Why do you need a separate set of rights for aboriginals than the rest of the country, are they not citizens of the country? The American Indians are considered citizens here, as of a law passed in 1924, and it only covered the ones who hadn't already become citizens by other means such as joining the military or giving up their tribal affiliations.
The Canadian Charter does NOT embrace "all the individual rights of the US (minus the guns)". Right in the first few lines it tells you in plain english that the government can remove as much of those rights as it wants to just by passing a law.
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH REASONABLE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY LAW as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." [emphasis mine]
Who decides what is reasonable? Why, the government of course! Free Speech in Canada is so well protected that people go to court for saying something that "offends" somebody else. Those are some great rights you have there...
gngottawa| 4.24.12 @ 11:35AM
No Canadian rights are not prosribed at the whim of the government. Rights can be limited through a judicial empirical test that looks at, among other things, how rights are limited in the US and other free and democratic societies (yes, rights are limited in the US too--like shouting fire in a theatre). And of course Canadian natives are citizens. But their treaty rights and land claims, for example, pre-date the Charter, and are afforded additional protection. Next ill-informed, US-centric comment?
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 12:37PM
Yes, they are limited, since doing something like yelling, "fire" risks a mad dash for the exit and puts other people's lives at risk, thus infringing on... wait for it... their right to life as described in the Declaration of Independence.
How are you going to say, "Canadian rights are not prosribed at the whim of the government" when it's right there in the first section of your Charter? "Reasonable limits prescribed by law" Your rights are determined by what the people in your government decide and you don't even realize it, or are naively determined to say it isn't so.
The only thing CONSTITUTIONALLY limitting the rights of U.S. citizens BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (it's an important distinction) are those things that infringe on the rights of others. The STATES are allowed to make laws limitting what people are allowed to do so long as their laws do not infringe on anything specifically listed in the Constitution, this is true, but that's because people can move, they are not citizens of a state, but the country as a whole.
That's the centerpiece of one of the primary arguments these days, that the US currently has MASSIVE government overreach.
Nice with the insult at the end of your statement by the way. What is it with Liberals and their inability to hold an actual conversation without either throwing out insults or screaming?
Harry the Horrible| 4.24.12 @ 3:05PM
Tell that to Mark Steyn.
Occam's Tool| 4.24.12 @ 5:19PM
For example, the Mohawks have rights under the Jay treaty. Not all of us are ill-informed, although Canada is a country that ill-informed comments about are essentially meaningless, as is Canada most of the time.
KennesawJack| 4.24.12 @ 11:32AM
gngottawa, quick question. "it permits limits to rights where demonstrably justified", who gets to do the demonstrable justification? If the answer isn't a referendum of the people, you have a built in mechanism for tyranny.
gngottawa| 4.24.12 @ 11:43AM
Please don't view the Canadian constitution as a mechanism to protect people from tyranny. Canada's history is fundamentally different , and the state is viewed a bit more favourably here. But the end goal is the same--to protect individual rights. But to answer your question, the safeguarding of Canadian rights is the same as that in the US, the judiciary. The courts established a legal test to justify rights limits, and part of the test is to see how the US and other "free and democratic societies" do it. If that doesn't work, the people do what Americans would do, vote the bastard politicians out.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 12:53PM
It is still a built in mechanism for tyranny, whether it gets used that way or not. Who do you think appoints the judges? Your federal government appoints those in the superior courts, and those judges then appoint the judges in the lower courts.
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/engli.....ges_en.asp
If you think your system is any less susceptible than ours is you are fooling yourself.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 1:07PM
Think of it as a warning of what could happen in Canada if the "right" group ended up in charge. If our constitution, that is FAR more specific about the power of government, allows for us to end up in this situation it can definitely happen to you.
DTOM!| 4.24.12 @ 1:39PM
Maybe when Obama is done down here, somebody should show him the wonderful Canadian Constitution and how it gives the government those positive rights he is so fond of.
Then you folks can enjoy Hope and Change like we have. Surely you would not want to miss that opportunity, would you?
Go back up North and fix your own problems - America will take of our own, silly Canadian.
Or do you find a lot of Conservative Americans ranting and raving in Canadian blogsites about how you are doing it wrong. NOT! We've got better things to do. Maybe you should find some, too!
Gary B| 4.24.12 @ 10:42AM
"Congress shall make no law..."
But, what about the president's single-handed law making, or federal agencies making law on a daily basis through regulations? Has Congress seen fit to reverse any of that... ever?
The pendulum keeps swinging toward tyranny and the swing back ain't going to be pretty. The Battle for America will have the makers and the takers at each other's throats. And the takers will have the government in their corner.
KennesawJack| 4.24.12 @ 11:35AM
Why do I have the uneasy feeling that this is precisely the goal of Obamarx and his minions?
Slacker| 4.24.12 @ 12:07PM
Our second amendment rights are so diluted that, from a practical standpoint, we are hardly different from most other nations. Any constitutional right we need permission to exercise isn’t much of a right. We lost our gun rights in 1968.
Sure, Canadians, Australians, and Europeans need gun permits. So does the American from Illinois or California. From a practical standpoint our gun rights are about on par with Pakistan. Freedom baby!
At least the 2nd amendment has fared better than the 4th . That one’s dead and gone.
Aoborn| 4.24.12 @ 12:49PM
To me our constitution was written for the people and constitutions written today are written for the governments. That is why our founders made it so difficult for the government to change it. Enuf said. The people who believe in freedom must and will defend our Constitutional Republic against these communist invaders. The government as always has failed it citizenry and now the people mush defend our liberty. Arm yourself while you can.
Petronius| 4.24.12 @ 12:58PM
I predict that the day after the election each of the three Conservative Justices on the the Supreme Court will get a call from the Oval Office requesting that one of them retire. If all refuse a second round of calls will come demanding same. And if all refuse again, one of them, (probably Justice Thomas), will have a fatal "accident" just like those who got in the way of the Clintons.
Gary B| 4.24.12 @ 1:26PM
The Kennedy assassination was warning number one. Throttling back the military/industrial complex and threatening the Federal Reservce were his crimes. Boy, did he pay. Looks like Breitbart did, too. Is there any doubt whatsoever that the government is public enemy number one?
Anthony| 4.24.12 @ 1:14PM
Now all we need to do after the election is to get Ginsburg, Sunstein, and the rest of the left, put them on steamers, and ship them all off to South Africa.
What do you call 1,000,000 ,000 leftists at the bottom of the ocean? The rejuvenaton of America.
Bill| 4.24.12 @ 1:28PM
I HATE LIBERALS.
Riff Raff| 4.24.12 @ 1:35PM
Now, now. It's not their fault they are insane. Liberals deserve our pity. And, of course, lifetime commitment to the appropriate institution.
Bill| 4.24.12 @ 2:21PM
Liberal are in denial.
FWB| 4.24.12 @ 2:06PM
Ginsburg has always been an idiot. She thinks the Declaration of Independence called us the United States of America when it simply stated that this was the declaration of "thes thirteen united States of America". The great extent of her ignorance proves she was placed on the SC because of her gender.
Next, she apparently does not understand that ALL RIGHTS COME FROM GOD and no paper document is necessary to "grant" those rights. In fact, We the People do not have "constitutional" rights. The Constitution does not grant diddly. The Constitution enumerates some of the GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS to let future generations know these core RIGHTS exist and preexisted the Constitution (US v Cruikshank, 1876).
The Constitutional system of government in the Union is one where We the People ALLOW the government to do certain enumerated activities. Those other countries have a government that is opposed to this paradigm. In every other country, the power flows FROM the government down to the people.
May God deal with her as she has dealt with us.
Tim the Enchanter| 4.24.12 @ 2:44PM
FWB: In your last sentence, that outcome is guaranteed- "With whatever measure you mete out, it shall be measured out to you."
Dave Williams| 4.24.12 @ 3:23PM
....and if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you. It would be very, very nice indeed if people really did get what they properly deserve, but look AROUND you, folks....It. Just. DOES. NOT. happen! So, it is up to us to make sure that events play out as WE would like them to...i.e., by voting for Romney even though he's not Reagan. Do you suppose that his Supreme Court appointments will be anywhere NEARLY as bad as Obozo's would be????
MIke G| 4.24.12 @ 4:10PM
I don't want to start an argument, but--we all thought George H. W. Bush was nominating a conservative when he gave us Breyer. Do we know what Mitt's going to give us?
W| 4.24.12 @ 4:20PM
Clinton nominated Breyer. You may be thinking of Souter. With Obma and Clinton there was no question you get a lefty liberal, Breyer, Ginsbur, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
With the Bush 1 we got Souter, but also the great Clarence Thomas. Bush2 gave us Alito and Roberts.
It is no contest. You have to go with a Republican over a Democrat.
Joe D.| 4.24.12 @ 4:03PM
Mr. Lipsky, let me spell it out for you and others who may read this. She and President obama are both non-American patriots. There is no other way to put it.
If you do not like the country the way it is and want to totally change it. I would say you do not like America and am not a patriot.
Kurt NY| 4.24.12 @ 5:16PM
With respect, the crucial missing ingredient in foreign constitutions and the peculiar strength of our own has very little to do with gun ownership, but is rather the concept that government is limited.
"Congress shall make no law" is a very different formulation than a setup which professes to recognize an ever growing list of very specific (and newly discovered) human rights which government must positively advance, even at the expense of freedom of speech, association, religion, due process, and property rights.
And it is precisely because of her unloyalty to the concept of limited governance at the heart of the Constitution she is pledged to preserve and protect that Justice Ginsburg is such a poor choice for the office she holds.
Bob S| 4.25.12 @ 2:51AM
Gun ownership is precisely what gives our Constitution strength. The entire document is meaningless if citizens don't have the right to defend it, and defend it on their terms, not on the terms of an oppressive government.
Vic| 4.24.12 @ 5:51PM
We were warned about the judiciaries possible overreach by none other than Brutus,
http://constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
The idea that the federal government will decide its own power is a fatal loophole for tyranny.
Also, I think the idea that power mad politicians and crooked lawyers can be held in check by written laws has proven to be a pipe dream.
Even the Word was twisted by a cunning serpent, and people fatally blinded by his lies.
Nite| 4.24.12 @ 7:46PM
Ginsberg is nothing more than another left wing liberal who just happens to be on the Supreme Court.
James Baker| 4.24.12 @ 8:19PM
:P So at any rate how many of you are ready for the attacks of the zombie liberals? (okay this is tongue in cheek but still). Think about it, when the zombies attack, the conservatives will shoot them thereby staying alive, the liberals will try to accomodate the zombie culture :P thereby ensuring zombie liberals exist.
POST American| 4.24.12 @ 11:18PM
Ginzburg's treasonous diss of
the US Constitution in 'E-jipped'
is yet gaining added dimension.
CATCH THIS---
"IF you think what's going on
in Egypt is some kind of liberty
movement or springtime
---you are nuts! I travel the
world. I was just in Egypt.
It's being radicalized by the
(---intel created) 'Muslim Brotherhood'.
Egypt's to be the capital for their
new caliphate. Even as Greece, the
cradle of democracy, is being systematically
dismembered and humiliated, Egypt,
home of the capstone's 'fave' pilgrimage
site --Giza-- is being ramped up.
Christianity's being thrown on the
junk heap of history. ISLAM is provide
the needed religious component for
bringing in the NWO. Make NO mistake
----ISLAM's their chosen tool."
CHECK OUT
'Clash of Civilizations'
pt. 2
Jay Weidner interview
(latest yahoo videos)
Suddenly those MILLIONS upon MILLIONS
of muslims being quietly settled into our
midwest ---and the unfolding cultural
snuff film that IS Britain and Europe
is making 'perfect' cents.
'Religion is the KEY to history."
-LORD ACTON
It certainly is.
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
Bob S| 4.25.12 @ 2:49AM
They are constitutions meant to satisfy the people so they become complacent. Our constitution is meant to unshackle the human spirit so it can soar beyond imagination. So that we can bring flight, computers, and space travel to the world, instead of government bringing us our bread, putting chickens in our pot, and curing us when we are sick.
The glue holding it all together is the right to bear arms. The entire document has no meaning if the citizens don't have the right to defend it.