<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>Reinier Bakels
wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:EDB537DD4FCD43BDAB01AC53E7015793@RBB2008 type="cite">we
now get into the basics of democracy. afaik there are <B>two alternative
views</B>: <BR>1. Democracy is an expression of the sovereign will of the
people - so it is always correct. This principle does not allow for the
unavoidable distortion on the way from the will (votes) of the people until
actual legislation. The only correction mechanism isyet another democratic
decision. <BR>2. The <B>rule of law in some cases has priority</B> over the
will of the people. The example most familiar to me is the German
constitution - which is enforced by a constitutional court. <B>The first 20
articles can not be changed,</B> at least not in essence.The German
constitutional court can reject statutes. But it is restrictive in making
political decisions. So often it decides that a certain statute should be
corrected (improved) *by the parliament* before a certain date. If not, the
statutue is no longer in force. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Maybe you mean that cannot be changed <B>without a prior change of
UDHR/ECHR</B> -or withdrawing UDHR (thus exiting UN), ECHR (thus exiting EU)
or both-. Or you merely state that simply can not be changed? Because, while I
don't know German Constitution, <A
href="http://narros.congreso.es/constitucion/constitucion/indice/titulos/articulos.jsp?ini=166&fin=169&tipo=2">Spanish
Constitution formally allows an total reform of itself</A> -even of articles
regulating how to make constitutional changes-.<BR><BR><FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>I was reacting to RMS's comment on
the correction mechanisms for incorrect legislator decisions. In alternative
view 1, legislators <STRONG>can not</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>make incorrect decisions
by definition - because the legislator = the people in a democracy. Of
course, this is only the formal truth - reality is that systems are not
perfect. Alternative 2 is about a case were the principle of the
"people's sovereignty" is subject to an exception: a correction by a
constitutional court. This constitutional court basis it decisions on -
obviously - the constitution. So to make the system consistent, the democratic
legislator should not always be allowed to change the constitution. So art.
79(3) of the german constitution decides that art. 1-20 (or at least its
essence) should alwaysbe maintained.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>TheDutch constitution is
very old fashioned, and we do not have a constitutional court. In NL,
only the European court of justice is an (effective)
safeguard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Constitutions often are a
reaction to history. The German constitution dates from 1949, and it was
areaction to WWII and the Weimar Republic of the 1920s. The Dutch constitution
dates from 1848, and solves the problems caused by thefact that NL became a
kingdom in 1815 because the Vienna congress decided so - after NL had been a
republic for centuries (from 1579 or 1648, depending on your view - NL has
been in a an independence war against the Spanish from 1568-1648) The Spanish
constitution is probably a reaction to the Franco era
...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>reinier </FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>