The reasons the US Government is different from any others in the world.

Most of our law comes from England thru Matlock. New England state statues revolve more around old English law, and the west Spanish law. Laws in England were never written down and have their orgin in the Arthurian legends.

If if your interesting
"inventing the Middle Ages" by Cantor is a good start.
 

A definition for you to ponder on, BobF.
then I really must go and do something!

An unwritten constitution is one not embodied in a single document but based chiefly on custom and precedent as expressed in statutes and judicial decisions.

A statute commands or forbids something, or declares policy.

remember, it has taken us nigh on 1500 years to reach this point; only under Oliver Cromwell have we not been a monarchy, and that was only 12 years.

we have had no successful revolutions, or invasions.....so our system has evolved....

you our had an advantage of learning from our; and everybody else's mistakes; when you wrote yours; though how that explains Israel and New Zealand I have no idea!

the French redefine their Republic every so often; they are now on their 5th; 1958, I believe; which has a written constitution and a Bill of Rights...and 'departments' rather than states; but then they only have about 70 million people.

but as Rt3 says,this all gets very complex; and beyond my understanding.
 
Yes and rt3 forgot to mention Spanish in south east Florida and Georgia and French in Louisiana territory with Russian in our northwest. You post was interesting for sure, but still not explaining how my post is wrong in your opinion. The word Republic by itself may have no meaning, until it is use as described in my post of the US Republic. Does France even have a description of what Republic means to them.?

In the document I used Democracy gives all power to those in the elected majority while Republic give power to all and controls the majority to allow the minority to also have a way to input and help control the nation.

A Republic


A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
 

And that is highly likely as the French 'helped' the US founders to develop our Constitution and early rules. At least that is what we were taught in grade school years.
 
Somebody has the Freemasons and French confused (sorta sounds alike). And with that statue of Isis (excuse me liberty) standing in NY who woulda thunk its pointing the wrong way. Oh I forgot it is to welcome the poor, down trodden etc. Now if we could just get the draft back, we could just funnel Obama!s immigrants through there and win this civil war.
 
And they did let us use their beaches during Ww 2.
Don't forget their willingness to support the Confedercy
lets go on -- Trick question. Why was Ben Franlkin chosen as French ambassador? As a spy, no he wanted to show them the key/lightening trick.
 
rt3 said:
The constitution is there so anyone with reading skills can hold it up to any politician and clearly see who is breaking the law sue that politician, win and receive servance. Name one country other country in the world where this is possible.
Click to expand...

Australia for one, except that I don't know what you mean by "servance".
We can take legislation before the High Court for a ruling.
If found to be unconstitutional, the law is disallowed.
I think that is what happens in America too.

Breaking the law is a matter for the civil courts and doesn't involve the constitution.
Politicians are not above the law in this country.
I suggest that you check with Bobf on this matter. He knows his stuff (for the USA anyway).
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Australia for one, except that I don't know what you mean by "servance".
We can take legislation before the High Court for a ruling.
If found to be unconstitutional, the law is disallowed.
I think that is what happens in America too.

Breaking the law is a matter for the civil courts and doesn't involve the constitution.
Politicians are not above the law in this country.
I suggest that you check with Bobf on this matter. He knows his stuff (for the USA anyway).
Click to expand...

My guess is the writer meant 'service'.

Warrigal, thanks for your claim of my knowing a lot. Just not true from my memory. But I sure do like to read on a topic and have no problems with posting links to what I consider to be good information.

What I think was the consideration in the previous posts was that when it is all written down in a Constitution it is fact, and the result of a complicated debate, not to be misconstrued. To have to wait to get a higher court to do a reading and post a response is just waiting for an 'opinion'. In the US if something in the Constitution is to be changed, there is a legal way to do that and it is done in the Congress with then a majority of states also approving prior to it becoming part of the US Constitution. No court can point to the Constitution, or part of the Constitution, and say it is wrong. Well, guess they could, but have no authorization and no way to force any changes if Congress does not agree.
 
We have a written constitution that is in many ways similar to the US constitution minus all the stuff about a president (federation of states, bicameral parliament, separation of powers etc) but we do not have a bill of rights because our rights are embedded in our laws, which as in England, are formed either by parliament (legislation) or in the courts by judicial decision. Both may be overturned on appeal. Black letter law (legislation) goes before the High Court (as in the USA) and judge made law can be challenged in a higher court until every appeal avenue is exhausted.

The system works well for us. That doesn't mean I wouldn't mind a thorough, properly resourced, constitutional review to sort out some of the problems that time and history shows up. The question about the reserve powers of the Governor General remains an open one and needs to be clarified. The Queen of Australia cannot dismiss our federal government but her representative in Australia, the Governor General, did just that in 1972. It remains a very controversial issue to this day but fortunately we Aussies did not riot in the streets nor spray blood on the wattle. We just held an election, elected a different government and half of us sulked for years until we got over it.
 
As long as it works for you folks, then not my problem. And even if it does not work for you folks, really not my problem.

In the US it is not the courts but "We the people" and that is our Congress and why the Congress is our big decider. Our Supreme Court can, and does, make decisions about our Constitution or laws. Then it is back to the peoples representatives, Congress, to make the corrections or remove the problem.
 
What happens over here is that the High Court usually says that the legislation, as drafted, is unconstitutional. The government then drafts a new version and tries again. It's best to head off later problems with interpretation of any law with proper judicial oversight.

The High Court never makes law. It can only interpret laws written by the parliament and rule on matters of constitutionality. It only does this if some matter is brought before it. It is the servant of the people, not the parliament. That is the essence of separation of powers.
 
Bob, I am just now reading. It's a focused read mind you.
In talking about the fundamental law I seem to be focus on Freedom from Government-over-man. Isn't what Obama does when he just iron pens something with out congresses approval a way he's breaking this fundamental law? Just a thought I had while reading over the Basic American Principles of Governing as a Republic. It's a hard read Bob, something I'm sure the Supreme Courts go thru each and every time a case is brought to them for judgment. am I correct in saying that?
 
rt3 said:
The constitution is there so anyone with reading skills can hold it up to any politician and clearly see who is breaking the law sue that politician, win and receive servance. Name one country other country in the world where this is possible.
Click to expand...
rt, you are too funny....It's does relate to what's going on in congress these days doesn't it. Obama being one of the rules breakers. Sneaky, sly, and totally arrogant about it too! A real Chicago thug IMO. But do we the people have the money to sue? Nope!! so what happens, it gets allowed.
 
rt3 said:
Somebody has the Freemasons and French confused (sorta sounds alike). And with that statue of Isis (excuse me liberty) standing in NY who woulda thunk its pointing the wrong way. Oh I forgot it is to welcome the poor, down trodden etc. Now if we could just get the draft back, we could just funnel Obama!s immigrants through there and win this civil war.
Click to expand...

Funnel thru and draft our immigrants? Oh ya, great idea!!! Why the heck not. Did they not do that with the blacks in the civil war to increase the numbers? Brilliant!
 
Define irony: Declare war using freeing of slaves as a excuse, then conscript immigrants as troops to win that war.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top