Jump to content






Photo

The South African Preamble to the Constitution

beloved by Justice Ginsburg

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:40 PM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said in an interview that she does not like the US Constitution but she praised the South African Constitution. What the heck! A Supreme Court Justice appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton cringes every time she upholds the Constitution? Why? I have a copy of the Preamble from South Africa below:

Preamble
"We, the people of South Africa,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to —
Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;
Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;
Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and
Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.
Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso.
God seën Suid-Afrika. God bless South Africa.

Mudzimu fhaṱutshedza Afurika. Hosi katekisa Afrika."
end quote

OK. I see why she would like it already. She is a Socialist/Fascist. The phrases in the South African Preamble to their Constitution that she would simply adore are:

“Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;”

Observe the code words, “social justice.”

“. . . based on the will of the people.”

Democracy not republican government. Rule of the majority, rule of the mob.

“Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person;”

Improve at who’s expense? Is anyone required to earn the quality of their life? I hope Tony (whYNOT) who is from South Africa will comment.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#2 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 12 February 2012 - 03:28 PM

You cannot rely on conservative commentary websites for your facts. Listen to the entire interview. Here. (The sound quality is poor. I used headphones and still cupped my hands over them.) Justice Ginsburg points to several of the strengths of our constitution. Separation of powers and judicial independence are important to her. Myself, I question whether the courts should be a branch of government. They were not to John Locke. Read his Second Treatise. Even though the founders of our republic took much from Locke and the Englsh Bill of Rights, they created a new system appropriate to their own expectations... and included a judiciary as a branch of government. So, too, does Justice Ginsburg, like Anthony Kennedy, look beyond the tradition of US law to international law. Even if I disagreed with the specifics, I accept the premise: good law is where you find it. While a traditionalist conservative will necessarily hoist the flag at every opportunity, objective philosophy (including jurisprudence) looks to facts and reasons, regardless of who invented or discovered them.

As for the South African Preamble, I found nothing objectionable in it. But youi can find mystic-altruist t ideas in ours, too, if you want.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And I highlighted "more perfect" because it is a grammatical error. If the South African Preamble had this and ours did not, then conservative commentators would write long condemnations of it.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#3 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:20 PM

Excellent points Michael.

I still would not have let the Wicked Witch of the West on the Supreme Court. I would have stopped her in the Senate.

Posted Image

Posted Image
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#4 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:41 PM

Michael E. Marotta wrote:
You cannot rely on conservative commentary websites for your facts.
end quote

I would trust them more than liberal sites but I see your point. I think I linked to excerpts of the Ginsburg interview from Newsmax, a conservative site. I don’t hear that well so I will take your word that the interview is not so bad, and she is not a Comrade Sonia type. So, if she believes, “Separation of powers and judicial independence are important to her,” I will accept that too.
I have never before considered whether or not the courts should be a branch of government. I have always thought of it as a check on the other two branches, and it has been, but an activist court can also do harm to the Constitution.

Replying to my question, what would keep the Constitution going until the year 2500, George H. Smith wrote:
First, the 1936 Supreme Court decision "United States v. Butler" would need to be overturned. This is where Alexander Hamilton's broad interpretation of the "general welfare" clause was explicitly adopted, thereby gutting the enumerated powers doctrine advocated by Jefferson and other strict constructionists . . . The odds of this decision ever being overturned are virtually zilch.
end quote
And George wrote:

Second, the Supreme Court would need to wake up to the fact that we have a Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
end quote
So in George’s opinion, it is the Supreme Court’s *altering the meaning* of the words written there, or their *adverse interpretation* of the words written there, that is the cause of our loss of liberty, and not the Constitution itself.


And it is the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear cases before it that would be based upon arguments utilizing the Ninth Amendment that has lessened our freedoms.

It would be a shame to separate the Judiciary from the rest of Government at this time, Michael.

How would you do that? Do they do that in other countries?
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#5 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:06 PM

I am just saying theoretically, the judiciary is a special institution and we too easily accept it as given. If you think about it, in ancient Athens and ancient Rome, there were no courts in our sense of the word. In Athens, the Assembly or a subset drawn by lots heard pleas argued by citizens on their own behalf. As Rome went from a republic to an empire, the law became more formalized and jurists studied at Rhodes before arguing on behalf of others at tribunals. But note: tribunes ran tribunals. And the tribune was an elected post as much of administration as judiciary. Historically, the headman was the person to whom you appealed for justice - Solomon being the paradigm, we hope.

In the Middle Ages fair courts were sessions at markets where merchants could settle disputes and a new body of law, lex mercator, was invented. Note the difference between lex and jus. In fact, there was a previous invention, private international law - suits between citizens of different polities - which was codified in the late Roman empire by Justinian 529-534 CE. (It is also called "the conflict of laws" for obvious reasons.)

Courts were independent of the government. They were in and of the community. In England, the courts were strong enough to resist the government. The king's men had to get a writ from a court of competent jurisdiction - and then, often, they were accompanied by a court officer. You just cannot go dragging people off like in France or Spain... The government (king) was limited by the courts which were of the people.

So, in that sense, courts were not a function of the government. Just as the government is not identical with the state. The ship of state is steered from the tiller - kyberman/kybernetes (hence, "cybernetics") - but the tillerman does not set the course; and he certainly does not own the ship.

But I agree that for 200 years here in America, the courts have been the third branch, with the dlplomatic branch subsumed under the executive (with advice and consent of the Senate). Of course, the post office is also in the same document, and we question that. So, I was just suggesting that we think this through more deeply.

BTW, I do not necessarily endorse Justice Ginsburg or Justice Kennedy (or even Clarence Thomas) without reservation. The thing is, liberal and conservative lose their meaning over time and justices tend to discover that the Supreme Court works at a different level entirely. So, they change their views. It is a growth experience.

Finally, if you read this speech from 2006 here from the Supreme Court website, you will see that like Kennedy, Ginsburg has a known record for internationalism.

South Africa's 1996 Constitution famously provides in Section 39: "When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court . . . must consider international law; and may consider foreign law." Other modern Constitutions have similar provisions, India's and Spain's, for example. In the United States the question whether and when courts may seek enlightenment from the laws and decisions of other nations has provoked heated debate. I will speak of that controversy in these remarks. At the outset, I should disclose the view I have long held: If U.S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others including Canada, South Africa, and most recently the U. K. - now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.

No one who actually watches the Court would be surprised by her comments on Al Hayat Television. (I do not follow the Supreme Court.)

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#6 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:56 PM

Micheal:

As usual great post. In terms of the Wicked Witch, it is simple, ACLU Chief Counsel in the early 1970's, first appointed by Jimma Carter and elevated to SCOTUS by the "first black President," William Jefferson Clinton.

A primary question, as to a Jurist/judge, is what is the function of a Judge? Certainly not to legislate. We have two competing concepts of what the function of a Judge is in this country.

Secondly, what types of disputes should come under the jurisdiction of our Courts. There are tomes in law libraries that search for a cause of action. We have become an overly litigious society.

The American Arbitration Association and other ADR [Alternate Dispute Resolution] mechanisms are infinitely superior models for resolving disputes.

We are drowning in an orgy of process, regulation and litigation. Life is not that complex.

The essence of a functioning system should be simplicity, clarity and balance.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#7 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:15 AM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said in an interview that she does not like the US Constitution but she praised the South African Constitution. What the heck! A Supreme Court Justice appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton cringes every time she upholds the Constitution? Why? I have a copy of the Preamble from South Africa below:

Preamble
"We, the people of South Africa,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to —
Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;
Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;
Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and
Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.
Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso.
God seën Suid-Afrika. God bless South Africa.
Mudzimu fhaṱutshedza Afurika. Hosi katekisa Afrika."
end quote

OK. I see why she would like it already. She is a Socialist/Fascist. The phrases in the South African Preamble to their Constitution that she would simply adore are:

“Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;”

Observe the code words, “social justice.”

“. . . based on the will of the people.”

Democracy not republican government. Rule of the majority, rule of the mob.

“Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person;”

Improve at who’s expense? Is anyone required to earn the quality of their life? I hope Tony (whYNOT) who is from South Africa will comment.
Peter Taylor


Peter,

Though as Michael points out Justice Ginsberg is not actually disparaging the US Constitution, I still find the comparison perplexing and faintly embarrassing.
Then I would, when since my early days of reading the likes of Allen Drury (hey, Adam) and other writers, and forever being convinced that there was no better system for freedom than the US one.
How things have changed, that a US Justice would look favorably abroad at other systems!

RSA's Constitution - I think I recall right - was cobbled together from every idealistically progressive source known, but particularly the Scandinavian model. Looking it over again, prompted by you, it is glaringly apparent that here our rights are 'granted' by State ("positive" rights), instead of self-evidently by individual birth and existence.

Every right conceivable is included ie., "to food, water, health care, and social assistance."
Then there's equality before the law, no detention without trial - and to 'Life', which in our case simply means no capital punishment. Rights to education, housing, etc etc.
But it's when the critical fields of work and property come up in the Bill of Rights, that we see the weasel clauses:

"Property may only be expropriated under a law of general application (not arbitrary) for a public purpose and with the payment of compensation".
"The right to choose a trade, occupation or profession, although these may be regulated by law."
(Therefore the means of production, and ownership of its rewards - remain forever at the behest of State, "for the good of the people.")

And general, vaguely noble statements like: "an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom."
(But nowhere could I find delimitation of powers of state, and sovereignty of the individual.)

Who pays for this fairy tale society? Everything that moves or is fixed to the ground has already been taxed to the hilt.
Next possible step is nationalization of the mining industry, official talk of which has already driven away investors...future jobs lost when unemployment is already 25%.
As for freedom of expression, Press freedom is right now under threat by the government which has got pissed off at the media exposing corruption and inefficiency, wanting to enact an Information Bill (for reason of national defense - of course!!)

How can the State get away with these? Simple, within the Constitution is a clause that it may be over-turned by holding a majority in the House of Assembly. That's our wonderful, progressive Constitution for you.
It's not much, but it's all we have - and we have to fight to keep it. Justice Ginsberg should have looked a bit deeper, past the 'humanist' window dressing.
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***

#8 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:14 AM


Observe the code words, “social justice.”

“. . . based on the will of the people.”

Peter Taylor


I get a whiff of Jean Jacques Rousseau here. Not a good sign.

Also the preamble defines the people of South Africa as fomrer victims. It faces backward rather than look forward. Not a good sign.

There was a time I would have thought their thinking meant well however mistaken it may be, but I am no longer sure of that.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#9 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,276 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:36 AM

I listened to the entire interview and I think it is an outrage that one of our highest sitting judges would advise another country against looking at the USA Constitution as a model. Ginsburg didn't say look at it and also look at others. She said don't look at it at all.

And as gravy, she said she can't advise people in another country on these matters. Well, if she can't advise them, what the hell was saying don't look at the USA Constitution as a model?

And, even worse, she waxed on and on poetic about the reasons the USA Constitution has endured. Yet she said don't look at it. So she doesn't want the Egyptians to use the same stuff that has made our system endure? Dayaamm!

This judge is a hypocrite and a discrace to her position.

And here's a jewel of judicial wisdom and dignity from her interview. Right at the beginning, she made sure that the interviewer understood the one absolute fundamental essential nonseverable critical provision of a constitutional government--nobody can screw around with the judge's salary.

Heh.

That is not to say Ginsburg is stupid. You can be hypocritical and discraceful and petty and still be highly intelligent. So there were some good parts to her interview. Here are two that I liked:

1. Her description of checks and balances focused on how each branch has its claws in the other brances. That is a very good point and one of the reasons the system of checks and balances works so well. The powers are not just sliced and diced so they can collide, they are also intermingled at the edges with conflict of interest (power-wise) built in. The more I think about that device, the more I admire the Founding Fathers.

2. She said the Constitution was written in general terms and this has allowed certain phrases to grow in scope like We The People. Back when the charter was drafted, this "We The People" did not include slaves, women and Indians. Now it does--precisely because of the non-specific nature of the phrase.

There's a danger in this, though. You can use linguistic generalities to include all kinds of other things the government should not be doing. Welfare, anyone? Still, I like the notion. There's some wiggle room to fix injustices.

I want to emphasize that the good parts of her comments don't remove the bad taste in my mouth from the disgraceful ones.

I could swallow those clunkers if they came from a law professor worried about tenure at a liberal university, but not from a sitting USA Supreme Court Judge meddling in the affairs of another nation (while saying she isn't)--using an international media stage as a bullhorn--right after the gun powder smoke has cleared over there.

Bah!

Michael

Know thyself...


#10 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:08 AM

Whynot wrote:
It's not much, but it's all we have - and we have to fight to keep it. Justice Ginsberg should have looked a bit deeper, past the 'humanist' window dressing.
end quote

I remember the ANC was inspired by Communism and Black Liberation Theology (or so they claim.) That is why my skimming of the SA Preamble sent off alarm bells, with its Progressive catch phrases. I should have listened to the whole interview like Msk did. And then I should have gone back and looked more closely at the SA Constitution. Thanks for the first hand view, Tony.

What will the future bring? A drift towards totalitarianism in South Africa like the rest of the civilized world? Hopefully not. Europe and America are now seeing the light due to socialism’s financial drain. Greece seems to have an entrenched welfare mentality with its huge block of government workers, which drowns out the private sector, but that must change. Sweden has embraced Socialism Lite for eternity.

We have our Tea Party here in America and hopefully a new set of legislators who understand we have a problem with Judicial, Executive and Legislative power grabbing. Our Constitution needs to be upheld and not “interpreted” for the convenience of Progressives. We are finally understanding their nuanced speech when they preach in our schools “The US Constitution is a living and breathing document,” because they also think it should be “growing,” and strangling our personal liberties. With their politburo elite in charge, of course.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#11 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:10 PM

The Bishop who is the major spokesman for the Catholic Church in America said that the news people who are “misreporting” this Obamacare issue should be wary. It is not just a religious, or birth control issue. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Anything even vaguely related to health care will be at risk of government intervention, like the food you eat, the alcohol you drink or the car you drive. Rush, around 12:30 made a funny mistake. He was talking about a school district that is following Michelle Obama’s health guidelines. A parent will be fined if they do not include a meat, a veggie and a fruit in a lunch brought from home. The parent who was threatened and reported it, said her kindergartener refuses to eat vegetables so why include them in her lunch? Rush always calls The First Lady Michelle My Belle, but he stuttered and called her “Michelle My Butt, ah, um um My Belle.”

The Bishop wondered if, using this issue as the start of an assault on the First Amendment, the Obama administration also plans to require that the major news outlets publicize bulletins from the Federal Government? And we are not talking about Terror or weather Alerts. Obama wants to “formalize” the arrangement with The State Run Media.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#12 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:27 PM

And then there were IX...

Posted Image
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#13 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:03 AM

Whynot wrote: It's not much, but it's all we have - and we have to fight to keep it. Justice Ginsberg should have looked a bit deeper, past the 'humanist' window dressing. end quote I remember the ANC was inspired by Communism and Black Liberation Theology (or so they claim.) That is why my skimming of the SA Preamble sent off alarm bells, with its Progressive catch phrases. I should have listened to the whole interview like Msk did. And then I should have gone back and looked more closely at the SA Constitution. Thanks for the first hand view, Tony. What will the future bring? A drift towards totalitarianism in South Africa like the rest of the civilized world? Hopefully not. Europe and America are now seeing the light due to socialism’s financial drain. Greece seems to have an entrenched welfare mentality with its huge block of government workers, which drowns out the private sector, but that must change. Sweden has embraced Socialism Lite for eternity. We have our Tea Party here in America and hopefully a new set of legislators who understand we have a problem with Judicial, Executive and Legislative power grabbing. Our Constitution needs to be upheld and not “interpreted” for the convenience of Progressives. We are finally understanding their nuanced speech when they preach in our schools “The US Constitution is a living and breathing document,” because they also think it should be “growing,” and strangling our personal liberties. With their politburo elite in charge, of course. Peter Taylor


Yes, sure Peter,

I can't express my own bitter disappointment observing the USA slotting into the same collectivist arc as
Europe (and Africa.)
A Constitution either reflects the reality of mankind and existence, or it doesn't, and yours does. Its core canons should be engraved in stone, for all time. How then, has it been remotely possible for power-grabbing progressives to have "interpreted" it, or thwarted it to their own ends?
There's something I note is common to 'liberals' : the *apparently* sincere belief that men are always evolving towards some perfection, and therefore constantly needing more advanced laws.
Innocence and stupidity, or cynical coercion and control?

South Africa's own Politburo, in government and the private sector, are of course, those thousands of ANC "struggle heroes" who had to freeze their butts off, 'in exile' as guests of the State, in Stockholm, Moscow and London. One has since voiced it -"I did not join the Struggle to be poor."
They are now the new crony-ist elite. Some guys I first met (in my press days) wearing Communist T shirts, are multi-millionaires in boardrooms, or Cabinet Ministers, 15 years on.
(The Armed Struggle is of course a fabricated myth: a couple million of we white S.Africans voted in the 1992 Referendum for policy change, under the most (and last) libertarian white President, ever - FW de Klerk - who I believe to be quite an unsung hero and visionary.
We brought about 'transformation': ending apartheid, negotiating with the ANC, and majority rule. Not war.)

Ha! Talking of Europe, I saw/heard a Greek trade union leader saying recently words to the effect of - "Goes to show, capitalism
does not work, and got us into this mess - the way forward is to change to Socialism."

Whaaat! Come again??
So much for Europe.

Tony
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***

#14 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:45 AM

http://www.starshipa...om/minerva.html

Thanks for your letters Tony. Here is a sample of a supposed Objectivist Constituion.
Peter

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBIC OF MINERVA

PREFACE

This Constitution has been written to enable the effective governing of widely scattered land areas and islands. Each district or city will govern itself within the limits of this Constitution. Its ties to the central government are intended to be strong, with a minimum of interference.

------------

THE GLOSSARY

The following terms are defined as they are to be interpreted in this Constitution, and are included to prevent innocent or willful misinterpretations of the clauses set forth therein.

PERSON

Any human of either sex, and of any race, origin or beliefs.

ENTITY

Any corporation, club, business agency, or other type of organization, formed for any purpose.

PERSONAL RIGHTS

The rights of a person to his life, property, and freedom. Personal rights extend not only to human beings but, in most instances, also to entities (i.e., right to property, and freedom of action). By this definition, no person has the right to life or property of any other person.

PROPERTY

The material and intellectual belongings of a person or entity. Intellectual belongings include thoughts, beliefs, ideas, patents, and copyrights.

FREEDOM

A condition which exists when persons have control over their individual lives and properties. Freedom is also applicable to entities (i.e., the right to control its own property).

CAPITALISM

A society so established that all personal rights are protected.

FORCE

A physical act by one or more persons and/or entities which is destructive to the personal rights of others. The threat to execute such an act also constitutes force. When force is willfully carried out, it constitutes a criminal offense. When force is carried out as a result of an accident, the person or entity found responsible may have to pay damages.

FRAUD

1) A willful misrepresentation of a contract.

2) Any avoidable breach of a contract.

3) Any misrepresentation of a product, property, skill, or person, to induce another person or entity to part with property, or to surrender a right. Fraud constitutes either a criminal or civil offense, according to the case.

GOVERNMENT (under this Constitution)

An entity hired by participating persons and entities to protect their personal rights against external and internal force and fraud.

CONSTITUTION

The fundamental principles and law of this government to guarantee the Capitalistic structure

of this country.

PARTICIPATING PERSON

A person who participates in this government by paying for its upkeep. All persons have equal rights. However, with the few exceptions set forth in this Constitution, the services of government are limited to participating persons only.

PARTICIPATING ENTITY

An entity which participates in this government by paying for its upkeep. All entities have equal rights, however, with the few exceptions set forth in this Constitution, the services of government are limited to participating entities only.

PARTICIPANT

Any participating person or entity.

ROAD

As used in this Constitution includes streets, highways, railroad lines, and other ground or near— ground systems of transportation that technology may develop.

UTILITY SYSTEM

As used in this Constitution, includes water, gas, sewer, electric power, telephone, or any other such system which is used by many people.

------------

THE PREAMBLE

This Constitution is founded on the principle that the only true and proper function of government is to protect its citizens from force and fraud, and that this government is limited to this function only.


Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#15 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:46 PM

I can't express my own bitter disappointment observing the USA slotting into the same collectivist arc as
Europe (and Africa.)

A Constitution either reflects the reality of mankind and existence, or it doesn't, and yours does. Its core canons should be engraved in stone, for all time. How then, has it been remotely possible for power-grabbing progressives to have "interpreted" it, or thwarted it to their own ends?
There's something I note is common to 'liberals' : the *apparently* sincere belief that men are always evolving towards some perfection, and therefore constantly needing more advanced laws.

Innocence and stupidity, or cynical coercion and control?

South Africa's own Politburo, in government and the private sector, are of course, those thousands of ANC "struggle heroes" who had to freeze their butts off, 'in exile' as guests of the State, in Stockholm, Moscow and London. One has since voiced it -"I did not join the Struggle to be poor."
They are now the new crony-ist elite. Some guys I first met (in my press days) wearing Communist T shirts, are multi-millionaires in boardrooms, or Cabinet Ministers, 15 years on.

(The Armed Struggle is of course a fabricated myth: a couple million of we white S.Africans voted in the 1992 Referendum for policy change, under the most (and last) libertarian white President, ever - FW de Klerk - who I believe to be quite an unsung hero and visionary.
We brought about 'transformation': ending apartheid, negotiating with the ANC, and majority rule. Not war.)

Ha! Talking of Europe, I saw/heard a Greek trade union leader saying recently words to the effect of - "Goes to show, capitalism
does not work, and got us into this mess - the way forward is to change to Socialism."

Whaaat! Come again??
So much for Europe.

Tony


Excellent post Tony:

The red highlighted area is the exact thesis that Mark Levin's newly released book puts forward. In Ameritopia, which I have in my hot hands, he walks us through the "Tyranny of Utopia," starting with Plato's Republic, then Thomas Moore's Utopia, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathon and then the final killing thrust, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

In other words, from the Perfect Society, Radical Egalitarianism, the All Powerful State and to the Class Struggle.

The second half of the book is On Americanism wherein he starts with John Locke and the Nature of Man, Charles de Montesquieu and Republican Government and finishes with Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy and America.

He finishes, in part III, with On Utopianism and Americanism, explaining that we now live in a Post-Constitutional America,

Nothing could be more chilling and more accurate.

Ayn was quite correct in predicting that Europe would go first. It is.

She was also quite correct in identifying that underneath all the altruistic amens and hosannas, lies a black death wish that relies on chaining the best of man, or, in the alternative killing the best in man, even if their deaths would soon follow.

It is that evil and it has been set loose in my land. it is ever hungry and demands to be fed.

Great post Tony.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users