Pros and Cons to a written Constitution

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

My country of the last 17.5 years, Israel, has no written constitution. I submit the following in the way of background (from our Foreign Ministry website):

Upon attaining independence (1948), Israel passed the Law and Administration Ordinance, stipulating that laws prevailing in the country prior to statehood would remain in force insofar as they did not contradict the principles embodied in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (http://tinyurl.com/2ny7z) or would not conflict with laws to be enacted by the Knesset. Thus the legal system includes remnants of Ottoman law (in force until 1917), British Mandate laws, which incorporate a large body of English common law, elements of Jewish religious law and some aspects of other systems. However, the prevailing characteristic of the legal system is the large corpus of independent statutory and case law which has been evolving since 1948. Following the establishment of the state, the Knesset was empowered to enact a series of basic laws, relating to all aspects of life, which would eventually be brought together to form a constitution. Most chapters have already been passed as Basic Laws outlining the fundamental features of government such as the President, the Knesset, the Government, the Judicature, Israel Defense Forces, the State Comptroller, Freedom of Occupation (dealing with the right to follow the vocation of one's choosing) and Human Dignity and Liberty, which addresses violation of a person's life, body or dignity.

The normative superiority of Basic Laws over ordinary legislation was confirmed in 1995, when the Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review of Knesset legislation violating a Basic Law.

Basic Laws
The Knesset (1958; http://tinyurl.com/2fogq)
State Lands (1960; http://tinyurl.com/36esx)
The President (1964; http://tinyurl.com/ywatb)
The Government (1968/2001; http://tinyurl.com/2v5nk)
The State Economy (1975; http://tinyurl.com/32qg4)
Israel Defense Forces (1976; http://tinyurl.com/33gys)
Jerusalem (1980; http://tinyurl.com/3appk)
The Judiciary (1984; http://tinyurl.com/ytc36)
The State Comptroller (1988; http://tinyurl.com/2avhn)
Human Dignity and Liberty (1992; http://tinyurl.com/3dnzc)
Freedom of Occupation (1992; http://tinyurl.com/3fhoa)

Despite what the foregoing excerpt says, I think that it is highly unlikely that Israel will ever have a written constitution per se and will, instead, make do with our Declaration of Independence and the aforementioned Basic Laws (which, unlike regular legislation, can only be amended by an absolute majority of 61 members of our 120-member Knesset) indefinitely. A written constitution, I think, must reflect a broad, cross-sectoral, societal consensus (it cannot be a means of creating such consensus as some Israelis believe). I don't know about Britain, but Israel has no such consensus and many groups and sectors would see a written constitution as an attempt to foist a particular weltanschauung on them and it would immediately become the focus of sharp opposition. It is convenient for many groups (religious Jews in general & ultraorthodox Jews in particular, Israel's minority communities, etc.) that many issues be left in the ambiguous, flexible state that they're in now rather than be forced into the more rigid, sharply defined framework of a written constitution. What is ambiguous (and amorphous) cannot be objected to so easily and can be more easily ignored; thus, civil tension and conflict (as if Israel doesn't have enough of these already!) can be avoided.

This selection of Israeli laws (all of them with links) http://tinyurl.com/3g8ae may be of interest.

Be well!

ssv

[One Bad Pig]

Oh, so you are for bigomy then?

What part of "A result I approve of doesn't excuse poor methodology." don't you understand?

[CatholicSage]

I'm sorry, but maybe I forgot when the transition occurred. Since when does Christmas have anything to do with Christianity?

Uh...you can't be serious.

It certainly isn't all the capitalistic shopping, or all the alcohol consumption, or the higher suicide rate, or the pagan christmas caroles.

Correct. It's the BIRTH OF CHRIST part that has to do with Christianity. There wouldn't BE a Christmas without Christianity. There would be some general winter festivites around that time, but no Christmas.

[Ben Franklin]

Exactly!! Britain was truly the "land of the free" while the USA still had slave states. And what's more, Britain used the might of its navy to "impose its morality" of anti-slavery on others!!

And it's morality of impressment of American sailors into it's navy...!

[CatholicSage]

And it's morality of impressment of American sailors into it's navy...!

Hey! I had the last word! Why did you have to exhume this thing?

[Thomas2003]

Well, I just thought it appropriate to point out where the origin of the Jefferson cite was. I know One Bad Pig didn't know. Nor did the vast majority on here who wants church in everything.

I'm very familiar with it and I think the gentlemen that originally posted was on track with his comments.

Jefferson's words were directed to baptists in terms he knew they would understand consistent with Williams teachings. The modern definition of Jeffersons words are not consistent with Jefferson's or baptist's intent - the modern conception is actually a Marxist definition and is found in the constitution for the Old Soviet Union:

"The church shall be separate from the State and the school from the church."

Marxist structure and political meaning is what the Court intended and did establish and has worked out in our social order, we are completely culturally marxist now. To stand against any of the Ten Planks is to be practically considered unAmerican in most people's eyes.

The Founding Fathers generally used the term "independence of Church and Parliament" which is a completely different concept to the modern meaning. The purpose of the First Amendment is the protection of a Free Church in a Free State under God.

Separation is inherent from Jefferson's own words. In the same breath, there was to be no interference of the private establishment of church, of which there has been none! Churches aren't even taxed. People are crying fowl, but these multi-billion dollar industries are getting a great deal in the US.

In the founding era up through to 1954 Churches were non-taxable, which they still are if they wish to maintain that status, just having an economic existence is difficult.

Nevertheless, modern "Churches" are 100% taxable because that is the legal requirement in order to become "tax exempt." Tax exemption and non-assessability are completely different things, tax exemption is like welfare - federal funding of the Church, at least according to the Supreme Court.

American Churches no longer have the legal status of Churches, which is very important - because one has to begin dealing with the concept of baptism, the Lords Supper, tithing &c.

For example, "first fruit" is impossible, you may quickly find yourself ejected from a Church if you demand this ability in any legal sense. Trinitarian baptism is unavailable in most because they organize their businesses consistent with 501 c 3 and relate baptism directly to it.

So, if you insist that you have a Trinitarian baptism ONLY - you may quickly find yourself ejected from a Church. In federally licensed Churches the legal meaning of baptism is very much like licensed marriage - "by the authority of the state I baptise you...." Except marriage terminates at death, no so with baptism. I don't want to go as far donaticism, but I believe there is warrant to question the validity of those baptisms because an oath was taken to the state by the ordained officer, generally. One has to wonder if those pastors still have standing to administer the sacraments, that is a legitimate concern.

The Lord's Supper, well you have to deal with Pauls words in 1 Corintians 10:21 and consider what a syncretic communion (e.g., Christ and Molech) means to your fellowship with Christ in terms of 1 Corinthians 11:27.

These are serious issues and modern Christians don't seem to have a clue, but early Christians willingly laid down their lives in resistance to legal requirement identical to what modern Christians voluntarily line up to do without legal requirement.

I think it is a waste off time and money and resources to be fighting to remove manger scenes or even worse, pagan symbols of religion such as a christmas tree. Such things are representative of the people and their religion. Such are rooted way way back in history and have been celebrated for a long time. Its tradition, no one should be denying that.

Well, they are claiming the state is Sovereign and there is no appeal outside of that.

However, in the same breath, you've got people trying to sneak religion into schools, using their 5 year old children with religious messages on candy canes, trying to get out the religion message. So the way I see it, both sides are messing up. You want christmas in a christian dominated school? Then you can't have children evangalizing in there as well. You can't have it all. You want religion, fine with me, but there is a median that the Right doesn't want to acknowledge. Tolerance works both ways. Right now, they are working against each other. It'd be nice if both sides could call a truce and work at bridging this rather childish gap that has formed.

It isn't a childish gap, it's a hostile intolerance to all things Christian and an unconstitutional assertion of state Sovereignty. Equalitarianism is not the intention of the founders, I think you said you just finished reading the Federalist Papers, I don't remember which one but you'll find Madison's opinion enlightening - they intened the Constitution to protect inequalities.

Christianity was the established religion and a religion must be established and presupposed in any law order, the First Amendment barred Congress from the Divine Right of Kings and establishing a federal Christian denomination. Of course, it does that with immunity today. It protected Christian liberty, Christian law, Christian society and the the freedom of the Christian Church. None of these things exist today.

The doctrine of "independence of Church and State" flows from Christianity and it exists nowhere else in history. All pagan nations in history are always politico-religious institutions and impossible that it be otherwise, as are marxist countries - they just deny they politics are "religious" because they are non-theistic! Modern states may use the words of Christianity but they don't mean the same thing, generally it is inverted and backwards.

Polytheism is the established religion in the United States today and it is in direct violation of the First Amendment among others.

[HRG_new]

Hi all!

My country of the last 17.5 years, Israel, has no written constitution. I submit the following in the way of background (from our Foreign Ministry website):



Despite what the foregoing excerpt says, I think that it is highly unlikely that Israel will ever have a written constitution per se and will, instead, make do with our Declaration of Independence and the aforementioned Basic Laws (which, unlike regular legislation, can only be amended by an absolute majority of 61 members of our 120-member Knesset) indefinitely. A written constitution, I think, must reflect a broad, cross-sectoral, societal consensus (it cannot be a means of creating such consensus as some Israelis believe). I don't know about Britain, but Israel has no such consensus and many groups and sectors would see a written constitution as an attempt to foist a particular weltanschauung on them and it would immediately become the focus of sharp opposition. It is convenient for many groups (religious Jews in general & ultraorthodox Jews in particular, Israel's minority communities, etc.) that many issues be left in the ambiguous, flexible state that they're in now rather than be forced into the more rigid, sharply defined framework of a written constitution. What is ambiguous (and amorphous) cannot be objected to so easily and can be more easily ignored; thus, civil tension and conflict (as if Israel doesn't have enough of these already!) can be avoided.

This selection of Israeli laws (all of them with links) http://tinyurl.com/3g8ae may be of interest.

Be well!

ssv

IMHO it is irrelevant whether you call something a "constitution" or a "basic law" (as Israel and Germany have done), or whether it is contained in a single document or spread over several ones. Examples for the latter case: again Israel, and Austria.

What's important is its function within a legal order: a written set of norms which is fundamental in the sense that

1. it establishes the basic structures of government;
2. it cannot be amended without specific requirements (supermajorities, popular referendums etc.
3. all "ordinary" laws must be consistent with it.

In this sense, I would say that Israel does have a written constitution.

[Thomas2003]

I think it is ultimately crucial to note when that letter was cited. You have alot of people claiming Judges with Agendas are making this stuff up. However, when you note that such a case was ruled on in 1878, this really takes ammo out of the Evil Liberal Judges conspiracy theory.

Oh no it doesn't and you know it. There is a night and day difference between this decision and it's application of CHRISTIAN LAW against Mormonism and Warren Court Marxism and hostile intolerance to all things Christian.

You left out that the Court went straight back to the statutes of James 1 and His codification of Scripture and Christian law as the foundation of the common law by which Reynolds stood.

Reynolds is a belief-conduct model in Christian law, completely different than the "First through the 14th" illegality foisted on us today. Six times Congress rejected the Blaine Amendment to the 14th to reword it whereby the First Amendment was backwardly applicable.

The modern Supreme Court has been engaged in a sustained and intentional warfare upon the peace and good order of American society for over 75 years. They have, with malice, intend and forethought engaged in high crimes and misdeameanors of Treason and Sedition.