1911Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Standard commie bullcrap. The goals of the state are dedicated to social justice. No RKBA. A right to health care provided by the state. Unlimited rights to liberty unless it interferes with the interests of the state. Yada yada yada.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Ah yes, the "freedom" we are handing out to the oppressed people of the world. No doubt their trade has to be routed through the usual points as well in order to be "free".

-----------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
I have to agree with you folks. Typical socialist dogma.

Still, they do cover most of the aspects of our Bill of Rights, in spite of ultimate subservience of the citizen to the State. I imagine it is at least starting point and does, at a minimum, permit unarmed protests. Which is pretty much what we have here.

I admit, I did not read it in its entirety and merely browsed it before posting, but have saved it for a future read.

JTP, thanks a lot. It is stuff like this worth archiving.

Jager
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
No problem.

I did notice that there was no RKBA, however I was pretty impressed with their seperation of powers, as well as their search and siezure laws. I found some things like their disticnt prohibition against torture and the presumption of innocence pretty reasuring. Considering the country this document came out of I think they did a fair job.

Edited to add: I think I am actually jelous of one aspect of their property laws. Specifically the fact that you have to actually be an Afghan citizen in order to own land. I think I wish we had something similiar here. I think...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Man, this is awful, although considering the boat WE're all in it's par for the course.

Look at all the stuff like:

The state cannot eat your children and flush their teeth down the toilet, unless allowed by law.

<yawn>

Yeah, it's a communist country's constitution, full of all the contradictions that entails.

Still, it looks a ton better than the EU constitution.

The typical contradiction in both is that the state is obliged to provide socialized medicine, in contradiction with the laws forbidding slavery and forced labor (from where else can the gov get the money?)

In the EU constitution this is merely a consolidation of socialist gains, although other portions hint at it being a "Crime" to conspire to repeal fundamental socialist laws.

In afghanistan, this is kind of different, as I suspect that the Afghan government, which is essentially afraid to set foot outside of Kabul, has a few logistical impediments to providing socialized medicine "to all afghans". These would include not having any rich people to ransack to pay for such a thing, and the whole being beseiged in Kabul thing.

I guess collecting property tax on rich foreigners who own land is out :)


PS: Seems I was mistaken:

Article 49: (essentially) Forced labor is illegal. Oh, except for situations in time of war, calamity, and other situations threatening lives and public welfare.

Hey, their constitution has a welfare clause!! Cool!


I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thing. Read the EU constitution though for a real horror story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I don't see an electoral college. I guess they really are setting up a democracy. He who has the most votes wins ... too bad America doesn't have such a simple system. Oh yeah, we don't have a democracy we have a republic with a supreme court who appoints Presidents. Maybe they might even have conflict of interest guidelines for their representatives and really make us look bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
Yeah, we should go to the direct vote for pres...after all, who needs the smaller states like Mississippi or Arizona....then we could just have all the politicians campaign in the population centers of NY and WDC bc after all, that's where the votes are in a direct democracy:( A direct democracy is the goal of the far left bc they know that all a cantidate would have to do is hit the big cities and be done. With the EC, it ballances the power between the states and forces the politicians to get out and see ALL of the people, not just the ones in big cities...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
angus macfuff said:
I don't see an electoral college. I guess they really are setting up a democracy. He who has the most votes wins ... too bad America doesn't have such a simple system.
If we did people who didnt live in big cities would have no voice in our government. We would end up with two countries. One would consist of islands of big cities where all the liberals live, surrounded by a massive country containing all the natural resources and most of the suburbs where all the normal people live.

angus macfuff said:
Oh yeah, we don't have a democracy we have a republic with a supreme court who appoints Presidents.
The Supreme Court didnt appoint President Bush, they merely ruled against Gore when he challenged the certified results of the Florida election. It was Gores challenge of election results that was outside the norm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
The electoral college harkens from a time when the US was a federation of states that were meant to be (the way we consider countries now).

Gore lost. Perhaps the Republicans were getting worried at the rate at which they were "finding" Democratic votes; but Gore still lost.

Wasn't gore trying to get recounts in Democrat-packed areas? How many recounts did they do, anyway?

And also, of all the recounting done before AND after the results were finalized, did ANY turn up a Gore victory?


A convenient diversion from the fact that the Supreme Court did not decide the election - they ruled that Florida election law applied in Florida.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
angus macfuff said:
I don't see an electoral college. I guess they really are setting up a democracy. He who has the most votes wins ... too bad America doesn't have such a simple system. Oh yeah, we don't have a democracy we have a republic with a supreme court who appoints Presidents. Maybe they might even have conflict of interest guidelines for their representatives and really make us look bad.
Not that it will do any good, but I can't let it slide.

When was the last time the Supreme Court stepped in to a Presidential election? You act like it is par for the course. They can't step in, unless asked to... ie there is a court case to hear. Had Florida not kept changing the rules DURING and election, they would not have had anything to say about the election. Way to slip that in, though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
641 Posts
nw_fan said:
Not that it will do any good, but I can't let it slide.

When was the last time the Supreme Court stepped in to a Presidential election? You act like it is par for the course. They can't step in, unless asked to... ie there is a court case to hear. Had Florida not kept changing the rules DURING and election, they would not have had anything to say about the election. Way to slip that in, though.
True. But SCOTUS always has the option to decline to hear a case. They could have let Florida settle things. The fact that they chose to intervene is what chafes some folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
LenB said:
True. But SCOTUS always has the option to decline to hear a case. They could have let Florida settle things. The fact that they chose to intervene is what chafes some folks.
In declining to hear the case they would have allowed the Florida State Supreme Court to break Florida state law for blatantly partisan purposes and violate the US Constitution. Specifically the 14th Amendment.

What could have been an option is Al Gore not contesting the election in the first place, which as far as I know was an unprecedented action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Did Al Gore ever actually get enough votes to win? Or are Dems who claim he would have won going off of the "rate of new votes being found" on every recount?

I can buy that - a couple more "recounts" and he would have won all right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Battler said:
Did Al Gore ever actually get enough votes to win? Or are Dems who claim he would have won going off of the "rate of new votes being found" on every recount?

I can buy that - a couple more "recounts" and he would have won all right.
I dont think they ever found a system whereby he won. The New York Times did a recount where they counted every Jew who voted for Buchanan as a Gore vote and every double vote as a Gore vote and Bush still won.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
641 Posts
Mus said:
I dont think they ever found a system whereby he won. The New York Times did a recount where they counted every Jew who voted for Buchanan as a Gore vote and every double vote as a Gore vote and Bush still won.
How'd they know the religious preferences of the voters?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
LenB said:
How'd they know the religious preferences of the voters?
Im not exactly sure whether the names were on the ballot and were "jewish sounding" or whether jews came forward upset that they thought they accidently voted for Buchanan after the controversy.

It was one of the things Paladin was in an uproar about that no Jew would ever vote for Buchanan and that they only did so by accident. It was because his party bumped the Democrats down from their usual slot by one space on the butterfly ballot or some such nonsense.

The other common complaint is that making it so that felons cant vote cost Gore 85,000 votes.

I guess all felons are Democrats as well (like thats something to be proud of).

:rolleyes:
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top