Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse
As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Democracy, Secularism and the Turkish Military

Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine DisposalRegistered User regular
edited May 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
There has been a fair amount of noise over the past few days regarding the Turkish presidential election. So far as I understand it, the president is elected by Parlaiment, and there have been statements made by the military to the effect that the frontrunning candidate is too religious for their liking. The Turkish constitution says that Turkey is a secular republic, so I am curious....If the parlaiment elects this man as president, and they attempt to pass laws with respect to religion, at what point would the Turkish military become justified to overthrow the democratic government in defense of their constitution? Also if Ege or Basar could weigh in with any more detail or opinions on what is going on, it would be good to have more information.

Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

- John Stuart Mill
Knuckle Dragger on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    What I understand of it, the Turkish military see themselves as the protectors of Atatürk's legacy; state and religion separated. They feel it is their duty to, by all means necessary, prevent anything to change in this respect.

    I have the feeling the Turkish population has only two options at the moment: either ultra nationalist or Islamist. To the Western spectator both options sound horrible. I am curious what the Turkish people actually want.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Discretion before valour

    The prime minister puts his foreign minister forward as president
    The Economist wrote:
    TURKEY'S European Union dreams almost died on December 17th 2004 at a Brussels summit. After hours of wrangling over Cyprus, the mildly Islamist Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, stormed out. Only one man could persuade him to return: Abdullah Gul, his foreign minister. The row was resolved and Turkey's EU candidacy was confirmed.

    Now the doggedly pro-European Mr Gul is poised to become president, after Mr Erdogan anointed him as the ruling AK Party candidate to replace the fiercely secular Ahmet Necdet Sezer next month. Ali Babacan, the equally pro-European economy minister, is expected to replace Mr Gul. The decision came after much opposition to Mr Erdogan's own presidential ambitions, culminating in a huge anti-government protest on April 14th.

    Deniz Baykal, leader of the main secular opposition CHP party, was swift to claim victory. He said that Mr Erdogan had chickened out in the face of resistance to a trained imam occupying a post once filled by Ataturk. The AK Party retorted that Mr Erdogan had “sacrificed” himself to lead his party to another big victory in November's parliamentary election.

    Whatever his reasons, Mr Erdogan's decision will reshape Turkish politics. Secular doomsayers claim that, with the presidency, the government and parliament under its belt, the AK Party will impose an Islamist agenda unhindered. In Mr Gul's wife, Hayrunnisa, Turkey will for the first time have a first lady who covers herself with an Islamic headscarf, they add—a direct attack on Ataturk's secularism.

    Yet even if such forebodings prove justified, the secularists are themselves partly to blame. For decades they relied on the army to hold the Islamists at bay as they enriched themselves, bringing the country to the edge of financial ruin in 2001. Happily, although the chief of the general staff, General Yasar Buyukanit, harrumphed, he refused publicly to disavow Mr Erdogan's potential candidacy. Mr Baykal, who has dominated the CHP for 15 years, shows no similar signs of moving with the times. Instead of offering an alternative vision, he has built a career on scaremongering. The EU is bent on dismembering Turkey, the Americans want to dilute Ataturk's legacy, the CIA is plotting to kill him—these are his tired mantras. Mr Baykal vows to mount a legal challenge to Mr Gul's election, which two smaller opposition parties may join.

    Mr Baykal's shrillness is drowning out legitimate fears about Turkey moving to a more restrictive social environment because of a more aggressive piety. This week's attempted murder of the head of Turkey's secular education board was troubling. Yet the AK Party has a big lead in opinion polls, and a good chance of staying in power in November.

    Much may depend on whether Mr Erdogan can strengthen his hold over the political centre, and on how independent President Gul proves to be. It would help if, for now, he turns a deaf ear to pious constituents' demands to relax bans on the headscarf and to ease university entrance for graduates of Islamic clerical training schools. As one top official puts it, “digesting Hayrunnisa's headscarf will take some time”—not least for the army officers who will share the presidential complex.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Beat by Elkamil.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2910950920070429?feedType=RSS

    About a million turks rallied in Istanbul.

    A million.

    They seem pretty unhappy and fearful for the secular republic.

    FarseerBaradas on
    sigeb2.png
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    If Turkey becomes significantly fundamentalist, wouldn't that kill any chances of it getting into the EU?

    jothki on
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    If Turkey becomes significantly fundamentalist, wouldn't that kill any chances of it getting into the EU?
    Yup.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    If Turkey becomes significantly fundamentalist, wouldn't that kill any chances of it getting into the EU?
    Yup.
    The EU favors allowing the democratic processes to handle themselves, which goes back to my question of at what point is the military justified to intervene in the name of their constitution?

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    If Turkey becomes significantly fundamentalist, wouldn't that kill any chances of it getting into the EU?
    Yup.
    The EU favors allowing the democratic processes to handle themselves, which goes back to my question of at what point is the military justified to intervene in the name of their constitution?

    I know people will giggle and say "Godwin" now, but it is really the best example I can come up with in this case...

    Up to a level, yes. If Germany all of a sudden decides to turn back to Nazism, you can bet your ass the rest of the EU will support any group trying to intervene. I think the military is allowed to intervene if they had the support of the people, as that would make it sort of a democratic process. I really hope ege or Basar will post here to shed some light on how presidential elections work in Turkey, as I know nothing about it.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    If Turkey becomes significantly fundamentalist, wouldn't that kill any chances of it getting into the EU?
    Yup.
    The EU favors allowing the democratic processes to handle themselves, which goes back to my question of at what point is the military justified to intervene in the name of their constitution?

    What do you mean, justified? Does any military have any justification for overthrowing a democratically elected leader? Doesn't that... you know, kind of fly in the face of democracy?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    If Turkey becomes significantly fundamentalist, wouldn't that kill any chances of it getting into the EU?
    Yup.
    The EU favors allowing the democratic processes to handle themselves, which goes back to my question of at what point is the military justified to intervene in the name of their constitution?
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I thought the whole point of constitutions were so you could have a defined point where you go "yeah, this is too much."

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    What do you mean, justified? Does any military have any justification for overthrowing a democratically elected leader? Doesn't that... you know, kind of fly in the face of democracy?
    That wholly depends on the type of democracy you are talking about. In a true democracy, yes it might. In a constitutional republic, the articles of the constitution trump the will of the people.
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?
    The question isn't whether the constitution gives them the power to intervene, but more do they have the obligation to defend their nation's constitution.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?
    The question isn't whether the constitution gives them the power to intervene, but more do they have the obligation to defend their nation's constitution.
    From the president's wife?

    Why should I assume that defending the constitution is what they're trying to do, and not trying to grab back power they've been losing because of the reforms?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?
    The question isn't whether the constitution gives them the power to intervene, but more do they have the obligation to defend their nation's constitution.
    From the president's wife?

    Why should I assume that defending the constitution is what they're trying to do, and not trying to grab back power they've been losing because of the reforms?
    This would be why I asked at what point they would be justified, and not whether or not they were justified at this point. It really would have helped if you had read the question before you tried to answer it.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    I really hope ege or Basar will post here to shed some light on how presidential elections work in Turkey, as I know nothing about it.

    The president is elected by the parliament.

    So technically, if a party has the majority of the seats in the parliament (like the conservative Islamist party AKP does currently), they would have a lot of influence on the election.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    GregerGreger Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    There has been a fair amount of noise over the past few days regarding the Turkish presidential election. So far as I understand it, the president is elected by Parlaiment, and there have been statements made by the military to the effect that the frontrunning candidate is too religious for their liking. The Turkish constitution says that Turkey is a secular republic, so I am curious....If the parlaiment elects this man as president, and they attempt to pass laws with respect to religion, at what point would the Turkish military become justified to overthrow the democratic government in defense of their constitution? Also if Ege or Basar could weigh in with any more detail or opinions on what is going on, it would be good to have more information.

    Turky is not a true democracy. The parties have religious police that punish those different thinking of religion. Turky is not a true democracy in any way.

    Greger on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Turky is not a true democracy. The parties have religious police that punish those different thinking of religion. Turky is not a true democracy in any way.

    Um, no. That's just plain wrong.

    I am not Turkey's biggest fan at the moment (the intense nationalism is bad news, I think) - but at least know your facts.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    The president is elected by the parliament.

    So technically, if a party has the majority of the seats in the parliament (like the conservative Islamist party AKP does currently), they would have a lot of influence on the election.
    Hm, that is quite similar to how it is here in the Netherlands, the biggest party delivers the president. That's how we have end up with Balkenende for years now. :(

    If it is the case that the people have voted for a Islamist government, then the army should just back off. Atatürk or not, a democracy is a democracy.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?
    The question isn't whether the constitution gives them the power to intervene, but more do they have the obligation to defend their nation's constitution.
    From the president's wife?

    Why should I assume that defending the constitution is what they're trying to do, and not trying to grab back power they've been losing because of the reforms?
    This would be why I asked at what point they would be justified, and not whether or not they were justified at this point. It really would have helped if you had read the question before you tried to answer it.

    The military should refuse orders to shoot at civilians, and that's as 'political' as it should get.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?
    The question isn't whether the constitution gives them the power to intervene, but more do they have the obligation to defend their nation's constitution.
    From the president's wife?

    Why should I assume that defending the constitution is what they're trying to do, and not trying to grab back power they've been losing because of the reforms?
    This would be why I asked at what point they would be justified, and not whether or not they were justified at this point. It really would have helped if you had read the question before you tried to answer it.

    The military should refuse orders to shoot at civilians, and that's as 'political' as it should get.

    I'd be more comfortable with it if there were some clause in the contitution that provided for and guided the whole process of the military periodically stepping in.

    But still not very comfortable.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?
    The question isn't whether the constitution gives them the power to intervene, but more do they have the obligation to defend their nation's constitution.
    From the president's wife?

    Why should I assume that defending the constitution is what they're trying to do, and not trying to grab back power they've been losing because of the reforms?
    This would be why I asked at what point they would be justified, and not whether or not they were justified at this point. It really would have helped if you had read the question before you tried to answer it.

    The military should refuse orders to shoot at civilians, and that's as 'political' as it should get.
    So, then, who enforces the constitution when the government begins to ignore it?

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Does the constitution give the military the power to intervene in its name?
    The question isn't whether the constitution gives them the power to intervene, but more do they have the obligation to defend their nation's constitution.
    From the president's wife?

    Why should I assume that defending the constitution is what they're trying to do, and not trying to grab back power they've been losing because of the reforms?
    This would be why I asked at what point they would be justified, and not whether or not they were justified at this point. It really would have helped if you had read the question before you tried to answer it.

    The military should refuse orders to shoot at civilians, and that's as 'political' as it should get.
    So, then, who enforces the constitution when the government begins to ignore it?

    When someone comes up with the answer, please send it to us.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote:
    So, then, who enforces the constitution when the government begins to ignore it?

    When someone comes up with the answer, please send it to us.

    While you're at it, let me know who enforces the constitution when the military starts to ignore it as well.

    Isn't every democracy based on the honor system?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The president is elected by the parliament.

    So technically, if a party has the majority of the seats in the parliament (like the conservative Islamist party AKP does currently), they would have a lot of influence on the election.
    Hm, that is quite similar to how it is here in the Netherlands, the biggest party delivers the president. That's how we have end up with Balkenende for years now. :(

    If it is the case that the people have voted for a Islamist government, then the army should just back off. Atatürk or not, a democracy is a democracy.

    I disagree.

    It should be the aim of every system of government to make the country better in absolute terms. If Turkey ends up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that means democracy has failed, and so has Ataturk.

    If the majority of German people wanted to go back to Nazism, should others be OK with it because "democracy is a democracy"?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The president is elected by the parliament.

    So technically, if a party has the majority of the seats in the parliament (like the conservative Islamist party AKP does currently), they would have a lot of influence on the election.
    Hm, that is quite similar to how it is here in the Netherlands, the biggest party delivers the president. That's how we have end up with Balkenende for years now. :(

    If it is the case that the people have voted for a Islamist government, then the army should just back off. Atatürk or not, a democracy is a democracy.

    I disagree.

    It should be the aim of every system of government to make the country better in absolute terms. If Turkey ends up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that means democracy has failed, and so has Ataturk.

    If the majority of German people wanted to go back to Nazism, should others be OK with it because "democracy is a democracy"?

    And that is why a proportional democracy will always be better then a standard winner-takes-all democracy.

    What kind of democracy is it where someone can arbitrarily decided the people don't know what the hell their doing and then move in to correct it?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    I disagree.

    It should be the aim of every system of government to make the country better in absolute terms. If Turkey ends up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that means democracy has failed, and so has Ataturk.

    If the majority of German people wanted to go back to Nazism, should others be OK with it because "democracy is a democracy"?
    Iran has a totalitarian regime and Saudi Arabia is ruled by a sheik. Not really comparable, imo.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I disagree.

    It should be the aim of every system of government to make the country better in absolute terms. If Turkey ends up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that means democracy has failed, and so has Ataturk.

    If the majority of German people wanted to go back to Nazism, should others be OK with it because "democracy is a democracy"?
    Iran has a totalitarian regime and Saudi Arabia is ruled by a sheik. Not really comparable, imo.
    Well, that's what Ege is getting at, I believe. If Turkey's democracy leads to the people electing their own Ayatollah, or their own Sheik, then it has failed - whether or not the result was reached through a democratic process.
    Sentry wrote: »
    And that is why a proportional democracy will always be better then a standard winner-takes-all democracy.
    The electoral system doesn't really factor into it - if anything PR is less conducive to a proper constitutional system. Simply put, it's a question of a democratic political system which, while acknowledging that democracy is based on the "will of the people", says there is a limit to how far it can go.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I disagree.

    It should be the aim of every system of government to make the country better in absolute terms. If Turkey ends up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that means democracy has failed, and so has Ataturk.

    If the majority of German people wanted to go back to Nazism, should others be OK with it because "democracy is a democracy"?
    Iran has a totalitarian regime and Saudi Arabia is ruled by a sheik. Not really comparable, imo.
    Well, that's what Ege is getting at, I believe. If Turkey's democracy leads to the people electing their own Ayatollah, or their own Sheik, then it has failed - whether or not the result was reached through a democratic process.
    Sentry wrote: »
    And that is why a proportional democracy will always be better then a standard winner-takes-all democracy.
    The electoral system doesn't really factor into it - if anything PR is less conducive to a proper constitutional system. Simply put, it's a question of a democratic political system which, while acknowledging that democracy is based on the "will of the people", says there is a limit to how far it can go.

    Well it's awfully messy to have 3/4th of a president

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Ege, do you have any idea what the Turkish military oaths entail?

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I disagree.

    It should be the aim of every system of government to make the country better in absolute terms. If Turkey ends up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that means democracy has failed, and so has Ataturk.

    If the majority of German people wanted to go back to Nazism, should others be OK with it because "democracy is a democracy"?
    Iran has a totalitarian regime and Saudi Arabia is ruled by a sheik. Not really comparable, imo.
    Well, that's what Ege is getting at, I believe. If Turkey's democracy leads to the people electing their own Ayatollah, or their own Sheik, then it has failed - whether or not the result was reached through a democratic process.

    Oh, right. I kind of meant that they never voted for their sheik in Saudi Arabia and the current leaders in Iran didn't get where they are by popular vote as well.

    To post a more firm opinion: I think that if a country wants a leader the rest of the world does not agree with, it is not an excuse for the army to stage a coup. As long as the new leader does not violate human rights of anyone the army and other countries should back off.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I disagree.

    It should be the aim of every system of government to make the country better in absolute terms. If Turkey ends up like Iran or Saudi Arabia, that means democracy has failed, and so has Ataturk.

    If the majority of German people wanted to go back to Nazism, should others be OK with it because "democracy is a democracy"?
    Iran has a totalitarian regime and Saudi Arabia is ruled by a sheik. Not really comparable, imo.
    Well, that's what Ege is getting at, I believe. If Turkey's democracy leads to the people electing their own Ayatollah, or their own Sheik, then it has failed - whether or not the result was reached through a democratic process.

    Oh, right. I kind of meant that they never voted for their sheik in Saudi Arabia and the current leaders in Iran didn't get where they are by popular vote as well.

    To post a more firm opinion: I think that if a country wants a leader the rest of the world does not agree with, it is not an excuse for the army to stage a coup. As long as the new leader does not violate human rights of anyone the army and other countries should back off.
    It's not a matter of electing a leader the rest of the world does not agree with; it is a matter of having a government that obeys the constitution. I don't think they are currently at the point where the military should intervene, but that does not mean that things will not reach that point. How does the Netherlands handle legislation that violates their constitution?

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    It's not a matter of electing a leader the rest of the world does not agree with; it is a matter of having a government that obeys the constitution. I don't think they are currently at the point where the military should intervene, but that does not mean that things will not reach that point. How does the Netherlands handle legislation that violates their constitution?
    Any legislation has to follow the constitution and we'll change the constitution if the need arises. Changing things in the constitution has to be voted on by the 2nd Chamber (congress/house of commons), approved by the 1st Chamber (House of Lords) and signed by Queen Beatrix (formal).

    We kind of trust our government to not do anything retarded and we'll protest if we think they do.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    It's not a matter of electing a leader the rest of the world does not agree with; it is a matter of having a government that obeys the constitution. I don't think they are currently at the point where the military should intervene, but that does not mean that things will not reach that point. How does the Netherlands handle legislation that violates their constitution?
    Any legislation has to follow the constitution and we'll change the constitution if the need arises. Changing things in the constitution has to be voted on by the 2nd Chamber (congress/house of commons), approved by the 1st Chamber (House of Lords) and signed by Queen Beatrix (formal).

    We kind of trust our government to not do anything retarded and we'll protest if we think they do.

    So what happens if the legislation gets passed, but does not follow the constitution?

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    It's not a matter of electing a leader the rest of the world does not agree with; it is a matter of having a government that obeys the constitution. I don't think they are currently at the point where the military should intervene, but that does not mean that things will not reach that point. How does the Netherlands handle legislation that violates their constitution?
    Any legislation has to follow the constitution and we'll change the constitution if the need arises. Changing things in the constitution has to be voted on by the 2nd Chamber (congress/house of commons), approved by the 1st Chamber (House of Lords) and signed by Queen Beatrix (formal).

    We kind of trust our government to not do anything retarded and we'll protest if we think they do.

    So what happens if the legislation gets passed, but does not follow the constitution?

    If a country has a constitution, wouldn't any law that doesn't follow that constitution be automatically invalid?

    Gorak on
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    If a country has a constitution, wouldn't any law that doesn't follow that constitution be automatically invalid?
    yup.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    If a country has a constitution, wouldn't any law that doesn't follow that constitution be automatically invalid?
    yup.

    No, because constitutions can be amended.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    If a country has a constitution, wouldn't any law that doesn't follow that constitution be automatically invalid?
    yup.
    I figured the Dutch would have a nice simple answer. Holland's my destination of choice if I have to emigrate. Any country that can keep Amsterdam in the condition it is despite repeated invasions of drunken English stag parties is obviously doing something right. Your red light districts are in better condition than the centre of my city.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    If a country has a constitution, wouldn't any law that doesn't follow that constitution be automatically invalid?
    yup.

    No, because constitutions can be amended.

    Well yes, there's always that. As I wrote in my previous post.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    If a country has a constitution, wouldn't any law that doesn't follow that constitution be automatically invalid?
    yup.

    No, because constitutions can be amended.

    Well yes, there's always that. As I wrote in my previous post.

    And ammending the constitution would mean that the laws no longer contradict the constitution.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Knuckle Dragger wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    The military should refuse orders to shoot at civilians, and that's as 'political' as it should get.
    So, then, who enforces the constitution when the government begins to ignore it?
    I'm gonna assume there's some sort of court that resolves these constitutional conflicts.

    It's not hard for a population to bring down a government that starts rigging the system, as long as the military and police don't get involved; I don't really see the value in their involvement, and I'm not sure what qualifies them to determine that a government is going too far.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.
Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse