Vic-20's OS maybe.

"Every banana republic has a Bill of Rights," said Justice Scalia....

completely unaware of the irony of his statement, that his decisions have helped the US towards banana republic status.

Wow - perfect time to copy and paste from my profile!

I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. For example:

- The right to vote - you can't be denied on the basis of race, gender, or age (if you're over 18), or failure to pay a tax, but nowhere does the Constitution affirmatively give U.S. citizens the right to vote in federal or local election
- The right to travel freely - Also not there. You could argue that "papers, please" laws violate the 4th Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree with you, mostly
- Public education - your state constitution might give you that right, but not the U.S. Constitution
- Privacy - Also not explicitly in there anywhere

Now I'm sure the Fark Independents will be around any minute to tell me why I'm a dirty commie for desiring any of the above.

Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

shroom: Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

I don't like Scalia, but you need to re-read that quote.

shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution

Because the constitution doesn't grant rights. I suggest reading the entire document.

shroom: - The right to travel freely

As far back as 1823 the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been interpreted to include the right to travel freely between states.

Joe USer: shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution

Because the constitution doesn't grant rights. I suggest reading the entire document.

Is this just an auto-response generated from a bot of some kind? It's so none-responsive to what shroom said, and in such a predictable way, I have a hard time imagining a living human wrote it.

Maybe someday we can have the Fourth Amendment back.

It would also be nice if the Supremes would acknowledge that the Tenth even exists.

Its a good thing that our USSC justice Ginsburg thinks that it is such a crappy document.

DamnYankees: shroom: Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

I don't like Scalia, but you need to re-read that quote.

Thanks, but I think I understand the quote just fine. Scalia is claiming that the U.S. constitution does not protect the right to demonstrate and protest against the government, while the USSR constitution (purportedly) did. He's patently wrong on the former, and the latter is a strawman. Much like 90% of what comes out of his ass on a daily basis. It's ironic that Antonin Scalia is pointing out that the USSR didn't exactly follow the words on the paper.

I'm gonna go with "Because they were both designed to be upgraded as needed."

shroom: Scalia is claiming that the U.S. constitution does not protect the right to demonstrate and protest against the government

Technically, it doesn't. Maybe you are referring to the "redress of grievances" clause, but that doesn't specify what *forms* such redress may take.

I came to a similar analog a while back.

Treating modern problems with the Constitution as the only guide is like trying to diagnose a problem with Windows 7 with a Windows 95 help manual. Yeah, the base design is the same and it might actually solve the problem, but quite a bit has changed since then and there's whole new areas of advancement since then. The 95 help book might just get you more lost. The better solution is to get a Windows 7 help book.

Marcus Aurelius: Maybe someday we can have the Fourth Amendment back.

It would also be nice if the Supremes would acknowledge that the Tenth even exists.

But mama said you can't hurry love. No, you just have to wait, she said love don't come easy, it's a game of give and take.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world's constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

That's some good company.

shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. For example:

- The right to vote - you can't be denied on the basis of race, gender, or age (if you're over 18), or failure to pay a tax, but nowhere does the Constitution affirmatively give U.S. citizens the right to vote in federal or local election
- The right to travel freely - Also not there. You could argue that "papers, please" laws violate the 4th Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree with you, mostly
- Public education - your state constitution might give you that right, but not the U.S. Constitution
- Privacy - Also not explicitly in there anywhere

Now I'm sure the Fark Independents will be around any minute to tell me why I'm a dirty commie for desiring any of the above.

Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

Maybe you should too. The 1st Amendment gives us citizens the right to "peacefully assemble", not riot. OWS is nothing short of a riot mob masquerading as a protest group, just as every other left-wing anarchist group of the last 50 years. Also, you may have "Freedom of speech and press", but not full immunity from prosecution based on the results of your speech or writings. For example, you can't write a death threat letter or make threatening phone calls and then claim free speech.

Marcus Aurelius: It would also be nice if the Supremes would acknowledge that the Tenth even exists.

The 9th and 10th amendments are utterly useless and 98% meaningless. They are platitudes devoid of content. The court is right to pretty much always ignore them.

DamnYankees: shroom: Scalia is claiming that the U.S. constitution does not protect the right to demonstrate and protest against the government

Technically, it doesn't. Maybe you are referring to the "redress of grievances" clause, but that doesn't specify what *forms* such redress may take.

See, this is the difference between me and a Bush/Scalia/Thomas-style "strict constructionist". I can read words like these:

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.

..and clearly interpret the intent of that to include this:

the right to demonstrate and protest against the government

But like I said, I'm not a Scalia-style "let's take the dictionary definition of each individual word, independent of what they mean when strung together" type who can't see the forest for the trees.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

Maybe you should too. The 1st Amendment gives us citizens the right to "peacefully assemble", not riot. OWS is nothing short of a riot mob masquerading as a protest group, just as every other left-wing anarchist group of the last 50 years. Also, you may have "Freedom of speech and press", but not full immunity from prosecution based on the results of your speech or writings. For example, you can't write a death threat letter or make threatening phone calls and then claim free speech.

Good grief, Charlie Brown. Who's talking about rioting, OWS, or making death threats? You brought all of those up, not me.

shroom: But like I said, I'm not a Scalia-style "let's take the dictionary definition of each individual word, independent of what they mean when strung together" type who can't see the forest for the trees.

Neither am I. Scalia's an idiot, clearly just trying to do a "RAH RAH USA" thing. We can agree on that.

sprawl15: The fact that we consider 'states' rights' a valid concept at all is reason enough to junk our current interpretation of the Constitution.

This also. What a stupid idea that is.

DamnYankees: shroom: Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

I don't like Scalia, but you need to re-read that quote.

Scalia seems to say that we do not protect the right of people to protest where the USSR did. Unfortunately, he seems to completely pass over one particular phrase.

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.

If our own Justices ignore the full text of our Constitution it is no wonder the rest of the world considers it less important.

FTA:

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: "Canadian law," he wrote, "serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world." The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

And who do Canadians have to thank for that?

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the libbiest lib who ever libbed it up in Libsville.

Suck it, conservatives.

Rev.K: FTA:

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: "Canadian law," he wrote, "serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world." The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

And who do Canadians have to thank for that?

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the libbiest lib who ever libbed it up in Libsville.

Suck it, conservatives.

My grandma HATED Pierre. The pirouette and all.

His son is fun to watch. I think Justin is the future of the Liberal party.

Rev.K: FTA:

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: "Canadian law," he wrote, "serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world." The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

And who do Canadians have to thank for that?

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the libbiest lib who ever libbed it up in Libsville.

Suck it, conservatives.

Congratulations on waiting nearly half a millennium to politely ask the Crown to become your own country.

shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. For example:

- The right to vote - you can't be denied on the basis of race, gender, or age (if you're over 18), or failure to pay a tax, but nowhere does the Constitution affirmatively give U.S. citizens the right to vote in federal or local election
- The right to travel freely - Also not there. You could argue that "papers, please" laws violate the 4th Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree with you, mostly
- Public education - your state constitution might give you that right, but not the U.S. Constitution
- Privacy - Also not explicitly in there anywhere

Now I'm sure the Fark Independents will be around any minute to tell me why I'm a dirty commie for desiring any of the above.

Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

s. 3
s. 6
s. 2, 7, 15 (1), 16, etc.
s. 7. 8.

Source: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (new window)

jebusfreak: shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. For example:

- The right to vote - you can't be denied on the basis of race, gender, or age (if you're over 18), or failure to pay a tax, but nowhere does the Constitution affirmatively give U.S. citizens the right to vote in federal or local election
- The right to travel freely - Also not there. You could argue that "papers, please" laws violate the 4th Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree with you, mostly
- Public education - your state constitution might give you that right, but not the U.S. Constitution
- Privacy - Also not explicitly in there anywhere

Now I'm sure the Fark Independents will be around any minute to tell me why I'm a dirty commie for desiring any of the above.

Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

s. 3
s. 6
s. 2, 7, 15 (1), 16, etc.
s. 7. 8.

Source: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (new window)

Canadian rights are not inalienable. They can be revoked/stepped on by Government at their discretion (i.e., the notwithstanding clause). I prefer the US approach.

Shostie: Congratulations on waiting nearly half a millennium to politely ask the Crown to become your own country.

Well, it beats cowardly terrorism and murdering soldiers in their sleep. How's that self-righteous paranoia working out for you?

oldfarthenry: Shostie: Congratulations on waiting nearly half a millennium to politely ask the Crown to become your own country.

Well, it beats cowardly terrorism and murdering soldiers in their sleep. How's that self-righteous paranoia working out for you?

Pretty well. We destroyed Germany, Japan, Iraq, Vietnam, ourselves and others.

Shostie: Well, it beats cowardly terrorism and murdering soldiers in their sleep. How's that self-righteous paranoia working out for you?

Pretty well. We destroyed Germany, Japan, Iraq, Vietnam, ourselves and others.

Shostie: oldfarthenry: Shostie: Congratulations on waiting nearly half a millennium to politely ask the Crown to become your own country.

Well, it beats cowardly terrorism and murdering soldiers in their sleep. How's that self-righteous paranoia working out for you?

Pretty well. We destroyed Germany, Japan, Iraq, Vietnam, ourselves and others.

By showing up painfully late for all those wars?
`Just a minute - I have to wash my hair! Dammit, I left my balls in my other purse. Carry on without me - I'll catch up in a few years.'

DamnYankees: Joe USer: shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution

Because the constitution doesn't grant rights. I suggest reading the entire document.

Is this just an auto-response generated from a bot of some kind? It's so none-responsive to what shroom said, and in such a predictable way, I have a hard time imagining a living human wrote it.

Are such questions on your mind often?

Whoa whoa whoa... Canada has its own constitution??!

mrshowrules: jebusfreak: shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. For example:

- The right to vote - you can't be denied on the basis of race, gender, or age (if you're over 18), or failure to pay a tax, but nowhere does the Constitution affirmatively give U.S. citizens the right to vote in federal or local election
- The right to travel freely - Also not there. You could argue that "papers, please" laws violate the 4th Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree with you, mostly
- Public education - your state constitution might give you that right, but not the U.S. Constitution
- Privacy - Also not explicitly in there anywhere

Now I'm sure the Fark Independents will be around any minute to tell me why I'm a dirty commie for desiring any of the above.

Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

s. 3
s. 6
s. 2, 7, 15 (1), 16, etc.
s. 7. 8.

Source: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (new window)

Canadian rights are not inalienable. They can be revoked/stepped on by Government at their discretion (i.e., the notwithstanding clause). I prefer the US approach.

I admit, the "not-withstanding clause" can be a source of controversy. That being said, it's only been successfully used in Quebec, to deal with their language "issues." Try pulling that on freedom of speech in English Canada, and rebellion, ye shall see.... As an English-Canadian, my loyalty belongs to my Queen, not a government that is hell-bent on destroying this country and it's constitution. Don't forget, the Charter is only a small part of the Constitution, although it's one of the most important parts of it. I'm required, by the written and unwritten laws of this land, to be loyal to my Queen, and nobody else. As She takes a passive role in most arguments within my country, that allows me the freedom of speech that almost no other country enjoys. I can criticize the hell out of Stephen Harper, I can even advocate force to remove him from power, without committing sedition or treason. In fact, I'll do it right now to prove a point.

I, with the Grace of God, ask that all Canadians use the necessary force and violence to remove Stephen Harper from his role as the Head of Government of Canada.

Did I commit a crime? No, I did not. If an American were to say the exact same thing, to remove Obama from power, that would be a crime.

So... the constitution implements a fake form of multitasking by using a messaging model?

TFA: "There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation."

The author seems to be going out of his way not to mention the more obvious problem Africans might have with the 18th-century version of the US Constitution.

jebusfreak: mrshowrules: jebusfreak: shroom: I've always found it interesting how certain rights most Americans assume they have aren't actually mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. For example:

- The right to vote - you can't be denied on the basis of race, gender, or age (if you're over 18), or failure to pay a tax, but nowhere does the Constitution affirmatively give U.S. citizens the right to vote in federal or local election
- The right to travel freely - Also not there. You could argue that "papers, please" laws violate the 4th Amendment, but the current SCOTUS doesn't seem to agree with you, mostly
- Public education - your state constitution might give you that right, but not the U.S. Constitution
- Privacy - Also not explicitly in there anywhere

Now I'm sure the Fark Independents will be around any minute to tell me why I'm a dirty commie for desiring any of the above.

Oh, and Scalia:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

Maybe you should read the rest of the 1st Amendment there, buddy

s. 3
s. 6
s. 2, 7, 15 (1), 16, etc.
s. 7. 8.

Source: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (new window)

Canadian rights are not inalienable. They can be revoked/stepped on by Government at their discretion (i.e., the notwithstanding clause). I prefer the US approach.

I admit, the "not-withstanding clause" can be a source of controversy. That being said, it's only been successfully used in Quebec, to deal with their language "issues." Try pulling that on freedom of speech in English Canada, and rebellion, ye shall see.... As an English-Canadian, my loyalty belongs to my Queen, not a government that i ...

OK. I did it. He happened to be up the block from me on my lunch and I took him out of power. Happy?

The not-withstanding clause has thus far not been abused. Interestingly, the Americans have had their inalienable rights trampled on of late. It is almost as if the inalienable rights are more fragile then our alienable rights (is that a word?). In the end, it comes down to what the public will accept (e.g., war measures act, patriot act, NDAA)

Anyways, I don't trust the Government not to abuse the not-withstanding clause. In theory, I prefer the approach to the US Constitution (not all the specifics however). Substitute Queen with "the creator" and it's the same difference. Even though I don't believe in God, I can accept that as a theoretical entity above mankind and that is good enough. But I do like the idea of the Queen also.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion.

As flawed as our constitution is, I don't know that I'd want to see it rewritten, since in today's climate you'd likely see the religion one kicked out of there for starters.

No, its not outdated. Its simplicity and openness to interpretation is what makes it essentially timeless.

Did anyone click through and read the South African Bill of Rights (new window)? Farking South Africa has a more humane and rational Bill of Rights than we do. If they can get their act together, why the hell can't we?