An elected dictator? Not again!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Onhell said:
I told you it wa scandilicious! :D
Click to expand...

Stop using that word!  Nothing Paris Hilton has ever done or will ever do can be counted as 'delicious'!

Oh, shit, this is serious thread...ummm...

I agree with your sentiment, Perun, a kind of 'better safe than sorry' with regards to changing the constitution, but I feel that certain aspects of some constitutions need to be looked at in greater detail in today's world, specifically the US constitution.  I know that the German constitution is much younger than the US one (I presume it was *ahem* redrafted sometime after WWII), but times change, and who's to say what sections of any constitution may become redundant or dangerous?  Obviously, I don't know the technicalities of the German Constitution, but I don't feel that a constitution should be unchangeable.  As long as alterations are not exploited (like a certain group of politicians c. 1928-45), I don't see why individual cases cannot be examined with more leniency.
 
Interesting reply to my mind-twisting exercise Perun. I disagree with you on that point because if the constitution or whatever wasn't changeable then we'd still be living in the 1840's...women with no right to vote, blacks may be owned by rich white people, etc etc...
 
Hold it! I never said I dissaprove of changing the constitution. What I was saying is that I disapprove of the violation and/or changing of the constitution by one person without the prescribed legal methods. Any change has to be approved by the parliament.
 
Caesar approves as well!  :ok: :ok:

@Raven: For not grasping simple humor you get ONE thumbs down... beware of further warnings!!!  :down:
 
Surely the Basic Law isn't so rigid that there can NEVER be things like suspension of civil liberties or use of the army in civilian law enforcement?

In Canada, the Constitution (the 1867 BNA Act, the 1982 Constitution Act, and the Charter of Rights) can be thrown out the window temporarily in the event that the Emergencies Act is invoked by Parliament in a case of "crisis, insurrection, or apprehended insurrection." This allows us to use the army, navy, and air force to help in disaster relief (like after hurricanes, ice storms, search & rescue operations, etc.)

The right to assemble, free speech, and whatnot can also be suspended by use of the same act.

It's best to be flexible
 
I am concerned about the following quote.  "Schaeuble is preparing for the day that a terror attack is carried out (in Germany) to distract attention from his own oversights," he said.  "It is as if he wants to say, 'I told you so.'" 

I don't know how the majority of German citizens view Schaeuble's ideas, but I know that when a tragedy strikes many people do not think with their heads.  I hope for all our[sub]1[/sub] sakes, German people don't buy into this highly emotional garbage.

[sub]1[/sub] I say all our sakes because if one country passes such blatant discriminatory laws, other western nations will be more likely to pass similar laws as well.  For example, when USA passed the Patriot Act, the Canadian government introduced the anti-terror measures I mentioned further up the thread.
 
Schäuble is very inpopular in Germany, but all it takes is a bomb and the next morning's tabloid headline to change the people's opinion...
 
Well, as LC has mentioned somewhere else above -- "Those that are willing to sacrifice a liberty for security, will soon lose both and deserve neither".  People (of all nations) are so quick to look for quick fixes without considering the implication of their actions.
 
Sound familiar?  Idiots like that have a way of gaining public approval and then rapidly losing it.
 
Only that Schäuble has been around for twenty-odd years now.
 
Perfect proof that the German terror defence is working perfectly, if you ask me.
 
Generally my thought as well everytime we catch the bad guys.  "Good.  It's working."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top