“I understand that to Americans, your constitution is very important. I respect it, but please understand that every country has one as well. It’s no more special than any other constitution. We have one in Australia. I don’t know what it says. I’ve never seen it. If there’s a problem, we’ll check it, but everything’s going fine.” - Jim Jefferies
Is the frequent invocation of “The Constitution” and recitation/paraphrasing of important passages by run-of-the-mill citizens a thing in countries other than the United States, or is that largely just an American thing?
Yep, happens in my native Germany. “Human dignity shall be inviolable”, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, that all gets often thrown into discussions with reference to the Basic Law.
While many just lump it into ‘the constitution’ what they are mainly referring to many times is ‘the bill of rights’ - or the first 10 amendments to the constitution of the USA. Those spell out certain things that are considered sacred to a citizen that the government can not touch. It is taken as a absolute right of a citizen, such as the apparent right not to wear a mask which many people are proclaiming, however I don’t understand how that one fits in, but apparently it’s covered.
First that I, a fellow German, thought about. I don’t know much of the rest of the Grundgesetz (the German constitution), but that’s the crucial passage which is most often referred to, and rightly so.
As for knowing our constitution, I was given a printed version for my Abitur (the diploma you get for finishing grammar school (Gymnasium)), and I remember having paged through it, but I don’t remember much.
References and appeals to the constitution are both frequent in Japan and South Korea.
FWIU, although the UK constitution is not one document, Parliament, especially the government of the day, is aware of constitutional norms and–at least in theory–will not violate them.
I think Canadians–at least in Quebec–are aware of only one clause: the “notwithstanding” clause that allows a province or the federal government to openly violate the so-called charter of rights by declaring a law to be valid notwithstanding that violation. The only restriction is that use of that clause puts a 5 year sunset restriction on the law. But it can be re-enacted then.
This was most recently used to pass a law outlawing the use by any public service worker (including day-care workers, bus drivers, university professors, etc.) of an identifiable religious symbol. No head scarfs, no yarmulkas, etc. Even though I am an atheist, I consider this an outrage.
That’s one thing I noticed – when people in other countries appeal to their constitutions, it usually is about something it actually says, while in the USA there’s an assortment of very loud and vocal types who just cry out “the constitution!” as some sort of mystical incantation that covers whatever it is they are arguing.
Also most of those people would have a hell of a time even remembering that they also have a State Constitution that organizes the level of government that they actually have to deal with the most in everyday circumstances.
You can find plenty of people here (or at any rate in the comment pages of the Guardian) who say, “Our constitution is shit, and we should tear it up and make a brand-new one, which will include all the things I like”.
With some of those people, I always wonder if they truly don’t understand what they’re talking about or they’re working on the assumption that the people they’re talking to don’t understand it.
A frequent example I see is a very republican person getting posts taken down or their entire accounts removed from places like youtube or twitter. They’ll scream that their freedom of speech is being violated. Does someone that spends all their time talking going on about republican talking points really not understand that their inalienable right to freedom of speech doesn’t extend to youtube or twitter…or do they just assume YOU don’t know that and they can get you riled up?
Maybe. Or maybe they’re one of those whacked-out conspiracy nut-jobs who believe “the government”/“the deep state”/“the usual suspects” run everything.
Americans seem to talk about their Constitution more than most. In fairness, it is a brilliant document and was one of the first. Most democratic countries have them. Most lawless countries have very impressive sounding rules which can be meaningless. If you want a Yankee comedians positive take, google constitution and Colin Quinn.
The Canadian constitution is a surprisingly reasonable and practical document. Considering it is the supreme law of the land, most folks are remarkably unaware of what it actually says or how it has been interpreted.
The USA has those too; here they call for a Constitutional Convention (which would actually be a constitutionally-permitted thing to do.) We haven’t had one of those since the first, because too many people have the justifiable fear that it would instead get rid of all the things they like.
All ten of the Bill of Rights amendments have been violated by standing law in the US, upheld by the courts. Except maybe the one about quartering troops. I imagine similar exceptional rulings have been mage in other countries. The Constitution means “what we should do, except when we shouldn’t”.
Jim Jeffries makes his point well.
I know Australia has a constitution.
I have my own copy.
I especially love the way the Australian declared independence from Great Britain by omission. And so sneakily that the Poms didn’t realise it.
But the Australian Constitution doesn’t have the equivalent of the Bill of Rights. It does not intrude intrude or define Australian daily lives in the manner of American lives.
There is no codified freedom of speech, movement or assembly (there is codified freedom of trade), right to own firearms … I presume troops could be quartered in my home. But as Jim says, generally everything is going fine.
It’s not easy to amend the Australian Constitution, but we haven’t done it very often, 8 referendum out of 44 plebiscites since Federation in 1900 and most of those parliamentary procedural issues.
Funny thing about the Australian Constitution, if I am remembering the right country, is that it was technically a law passed by the British parliament.
At the time Australia was a British Colony so it was drafted by Australian residents, passed by the UK parliament with little amendment, no member of that parliament was an Australian resident and signed into law by the UK monarch who thought that the document appointed her as Queen of Australia and Australian head of state. The former but not the latter.