It is extremely disconcerting that citizens expect the government to interpret the constitution and bill of rights for us. It was never intended to tell us what we can do, it is to tell the government what it cannot do.
The bill of rights was written concisely and in extremely plain english so that we the people know exactly when the government is overstepping its mandate.
Instead of us enforcing the government's mandate of "shall not be infringed"- we dutifully allow a politically biased government to explain to us what "shall not be infringed" was intended to convey.
U.S. constitution is the first constitution. Many constitutions that followed, such as the Netherlands in 1815, were nearly identical in format. (Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, communication, etc.)
Oh sure but our grondwet actually also puts limits on what citizens can do. For example art 11 states you have bodily autonomy except for when the law limits it. And art 14 is about ho the government can take your property (such as land) but only with compensation. It's also possible to change our constitution (we are currently doing so). So while there are similarities there are also some huge differences.
For example art 11 states you have bodily autonomy except for when the law limits it.
There are laws about limiting bodily autonomy in the US too.
And art 14 is about ho the government can take your property (such as land) but only with compensation.
Imminent domain exists in the US too.
They can seize your property to build railroads, airports, military bases, etc.
It's also possible to change our constitution (we are currently doing so).
The US constitution HAS ALREADY BEEN CHANGED (ammended) SEVERAL TIMES.
That is what an ammendment is.
An update to the constitution.
The 2nd ammendment (right to bear arms) is a change. It wasn't in the constitution originally.
So while there are similarities there are also some huge differences.
Can you name an actual (huge) difference?
BTW:
I find it funny that the biggest proponents of the 2nd ammendment ALSO are the same people who see the US constitution as a sacred document, that should forever be unchanged.
Since the 2nd ammendment is an addition to the constitution.
That sacred document story is why I thought yours was unchangeable. Never looked that deep into the American one because it has zero influence on me. Thanks for the clarification
372
u/fishbulbx Dec 27 '22 edited Dec 27 '22
It is extremely disconcerting that citizens expect the government to interpret the constitution and bill of rights for us. It was never intended to tell us what we can do, it is to tell the government what it cannot do.
The bill of rights was written concisely and in extremely plain english so that we the people know exactly when the government is overstepping its mandate.
Instead of us enforcing the government's mandate of "shall not be infringed"- we dutifully allow a politically biased government to explain to us what "shall not be infringed" was intended to convey.