Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The constituonal court in the US is the Supreme Court. It interprets the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. And which can be amended by lawmakers when ratified by lawmakers in a sufficient number of states. The Sups get to decide if a law is constituonal, but they never get to write the law.
There is a difficulty in having freedom of speech. But you can just ignore unsavory free speech. Legislating about speech (or about thought as some countries do!) is one answer, but that doesn't leave you with freedom of speech. You may have freer speech than others, but it is still limited.
parliament draft (first vote) -> committee of non-political/partisan bureaucrats making a legal application -> back to parliament (second vote) -> president (who rejects it if unreasonable, like attempting to create a dictatorship) -> supreme administrative court -> actual law or back to parliament as rejected. If rejected it goes back to the committee, and the second vote redone and so on. A constitutional draft requires 66% of all MP's approval, and we haven't had such a governmental majority since the emergency government during WWII.
parliament draft (first vote) -> committee of non-political/partisan bureaucrats making a legal application -> back to parliament (second vote) -> president (who rejects it if unreasonable, like attempting to create a dictatorship) -> supreme administrative court -> actual law or back to parliament as rejected. If rejected it goes back to the committee, and the second vote redone and so on. A constitutional draft requires 66% of all MP's approval, and we haven't had such a governmental majority since the emergency government during WWII.
This sounds like the normal process which we have as well. The courts only get involved if that process violates the constitution.
Our normal process simplified is:
Bill is presented and can be presented by a house representative, senator, the president or even a private citizen. House votes. If it passes, it moves to the senate. If it passes the senate, it's sent to the president who can either sign the bill into law or veto it. The senate can also kill a bill by using a filibuster. If one party has at least 60 seats out of the 100 in the senate, they can avoid a filibuster. As 100 is an even number, the vice president is also head of the senate and can break a tie vote.
In order to amend the constitution, the amendment must pass congress (both houses) by a two thirds vote. If that happens, it must then be ratified by 38 out of 50 states.
So, it's not like they can just take away freedom of speech as it's protected by the constitution and no law makers or states (not enough any way) would ever help such a thing pass. If however, by some weird miracle it were to pass, the amendment itself would be deemed unconstitutional as one such amendment is that congress shall pass no law which violates the constitution.
Because Americans do not give a crap about how fractured their society is. They let white nationalists and Black Panthers spout off their mouths consequence-free and defend their right to promote violence and extermination of other peoples, and then wonder why their society has more mentally ill people. Just yuck.
Because Americans do not give a crap about how fractured their society is. They let white nationalists and Black Panthers spout off their mouths consequence-free and defend their right to promote violence and extermination of other peoples, and then wonder why their society has more mentally ill people. Just yuck.
Americans don't believe our society is fractured. Sooner or later, someone is going to comment on this thread asking what you mean when you say this because they themselves just can't see it.
Because Americans do not give a crap about how fractured their society is. They let white nationalists and Black Panthers spout off their mouths consequence-free and defend their right to promote violence and extermination of other peoples, and then wonder why their society has more mentally ill people. Just yuck.
I know that they value freedom of speech but if these speeches incite for violence and racial hate against a good chunk of Americans why don't they modify the First Amendment in a way that this freedom of speech could be denied in extreme cases such as this one?
I don't know if this question fits the General USA Forum or the World Forum, i have decided to post it in the latter but if the mods want to they can move it
Who decides what is and is not hate speech? Which ever group is in charge of such an idea would be given immense power. What happens when something is considered hate speech but is actually true. It would be easily for those in power to use hate speech laws to silence their opposition.
There is less animosity between groups of Americans than there is directed at the US by Canadians. At least judging by the rhetoric of some Canadian nationalist bigots on City-Data.
I know that they value freedom of speech but if these speeches incite for violence and racial hate against a good chunk of Americans why don't they modify the First Amendment in a way that this freedom of speech could be denied in extreme cases such as this one?
I see it as more dangerous for the government to act as a judge on correct speech. Better to have a completely open debate and know who the dangerous ones are.
The First Amendment can't really be modified in practice.
I think you are radically overestimating their organization, power, numbers, and influence. A crowd of morons in white hoods looks big on your little TV screen, but in an ocean of hundreds of millions of Americans, they commit less violence then bros fighting over girls at the local pubs on a Saturday night.
It is actually the lone wolves who commit the most violence. They are lone wolves for a reason. Because they are mentally unstable and even the local racist group (drinking club for low IQ losers) can't stand to be around them.
Agreed. But a reminder that David Duke managed to get 39% of the vote in the 1991 Louisiana governor race (and narrowly won the white vote)
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb
The problem is that you give them the opportunity of organizing themselves, have a (quite limited) political weight, having a media presence as can be seen with how widely reported Duke's and KKK's support to Trump's campaign was as well as letting them spread their racist ideas more easily through boards such as Stormfront
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
