Venezuela: Democracy in danger?

Art. 7 Menschenwürde

  • Die Würde des Menschen ist zu achten und zu schützen. ("human dignity shall be respected and protected")

Art. 8 Rechtsgleichheit

  • Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich. (Everyone is the same infornt of law, including those below 1.7m)

  • Niemand darf diskriminiert werden, namentlich nicht wegen der Herkunft, der Rasse, des Geschlechts, des Alters, der Sprache, der sozialen Stellung, der Lebensform, der religiösen, weltanschaulichen oder politischen Überzeugung oder wegen einer körperlichen, geistigen oder psychischen Behinderung.
(Discrimination is not allowed)
Click to expand...

Those are the parts of our constitution you would violate with your 1.7m initiative, thus there will be no vote about it, because its violating those defined rights, and those cannot be removed.

ETA: and afaik, in the US, it is the Bill of Rights that would protect the 1.7m people, or did i get that wrong?
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
Our constitution does not allow us to violate Human rights and International laws, this is pretty clearly defined in our constitution.
that makes perfect sence.
Click to expand...
There is no international law for the right to vote.

afaik in the US for a new law, both, the Senate and the House of representatives needs a simple majority. when the President is not using the veto, then the Law is law.
if he dose use the veto. then the Senate and the house of representatives need each 66,666% majority to get the law passed anyway.

how is that protecting the 1.7`m tall people?
Click to expand...
No law passed by Congress can overule the Constitution.
 
WildCat said:
There is no international law for the right to vote.
Click to expand...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

WildCat said:
No law passed by Congress can overule the Constitution.
Click to expand...
and how can you change the constitution?
 
in the US, 5 peoples decision can change the constitution, isnt it? the Supreme Court, thats one way
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
in the US, 5 peoples decision can change the constitution, isnt it? the Supreme Court, thats one way
Click to expand...

Well, no. The SC cannot change the constitution. They can change interpretation of the constitution, but not the constitution itself. And even there, they can be countered. For example, legislatures have the power to nullify the significance of Kelo vs. New London.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, no. The SC cannot change the constitution. They can change interpretation of the constitution, but not the constitution itself. And even there, they can be countered. For example, legislatures have the power to nullify the significance of Kelo vs. New London.
Click to expand...

well an Informal Amendment is a change, just not the writen document.
and sure it can be nullified.
and in this proces, the people have no direct say.

the people have no direct say, in all ways of the amendment process.
 
 
Dictator Cheney said:
how can you change the constitution?
Click to expand...
Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Basically 3/4 of the States must ratify any proposed changes. It's very difficult to do, there's only 27 Amendments to the Constitution including the Bill of Rights.
 
WildCat said:
Basically 3/4 of the States must ratify any proposed changes. It's very difficult to do, there's only 27 Amendments to the Constitution including the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

and nr 27 shows that it can take alot time :)

but how is it actually protecting people under 1.7m ?
 
Ziggurat said:
From this link:

Note the bolded part. Calling something an informal ammendment doesn't make it one. That the mistake is repeated with frequency does not make it correct.
Click to expand...

well i thought those changes in the interpretation of the constitution are called informal amendment.
how do you call them?

ETA: and the same page is bringing up Informal Amendment themselfe, even tho the question did not say Informal Amendment.

Q16. "I have been on the net for about an hour reading all I can find about informal changes which have occurred in the Constitution during the last 200 years. Which kind of change, formal or informal, have been most important in our history?"

A. An "Informal Change" or "Informal Amendment" to the Constitution is one where the interpretation of the Constitution is changed by a Supreme Court ruling, rather than by a formal constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a1.html
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
so it is actually still not ensured by the US constitution, that black people can vote?
Click to expand...

No. The 15th ammendment guarantees voting rights for citizens of all races. But thanks for proving my point about your ignorance of the US.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. The 15th ammendment guarantees voting rights for citizens of all races. But thanks for proving my point about your ignorance of the US.
Click to expand...

i was indeed wrong with that one.
i should have taken the example of right to privacy. without those informal amendments, you have no right to privacy.

but actually the debate showed, that according to the Venezuelan constitution, Venezuelans have more democracy than the US people have according to the US constitution.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
but actually the debate showed, that according to the Venezuelan constitution, Venezuelans have more democracy than the US people have according to the US constitution.
Click to expand...

Iraq's constitution under Saddam didn't look so bad. And yet...
 
Ziggurat said:
Iraq's constitution under Saddam didn't look so bad. And yet...
Click to expand...

thanks for showing your ignorance about Venezuela.

how many opposition politicans won the regional elections in Teheran? under saddam?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
thanks for showing your ignorance about Venezuela.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I made no mention of Venezuela in that post. Sorry, but you seem to have missed the point, which was that your argument was illogical. And that point stands whether or not Venezuela is a paragon of democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom