08-04-2018, 12:45 PM
You hush, Cormac. 
I absolutely have a bias against constitutional laws, and I don't think it's baseless. If something should have constitutional force, it should be in the constitution. Not in some other document that we decide to say is just as important but somehow not important enough to actually fit in, and just hope there's no contradictions between what the two of them say because oh my, it's not like that's a headache. And it's really that much work to draft an amendment vs. a whole new law. You just say "The mandate is amended as follows:" and then put down what you're doing.
And to tie the two bits together, a bill of rights is one of the few things I could accept being afforded "constitutional law" status separate from being in the constitution. The establishment of the rights of individuals is reasonable to separate from the establishment of the powers and structures of the government, because they are two very different areas. One could amend the government while maintaining that citizens have the same rights as ever. But the nitty gritty of procedure, of process, of how things function? No. Either they are so important that they belong in the constitution with the other foundations of government, or they belong as regular law, subordinate to what the constitution says.
(08-02-2018, 03:55 PM)McChimp Wrote: The protection of a citizen's right to justice is definitely a matter that deserves constitutional protection.The protection of a right, yes. I agree. But this isn't a protection of that right - it's an establishment of procedures and requirements to follow. There is more than one way a citizen might exercise their right to seek justice and we don't need to enshrine this particular one as as important as the constitution.
Quote:In order for it to fit the constitution's format, I'd have to make a constitutional amendment referencing the law and then pass a law. It'd be a colossal waste of time to indulge what I can only describe as a baseless bias against constitutional laws.
I absolutely have a bias against constitutional laws, and I don't think it's baseless. If something should have constitutional force, it should be in the constitution. Not in some other document that we decide to say is just as important but somehow not important enough to actually fit in, and just hope there's no contradictions between what the two of them say because oh my, it's not like that's a headache. And it's really that much work to draft an amendment vs. a whole new law. You just say "The mandate is amended as follows:" and then put down what you're doing.
And to tie the two bits together, a bill of rights is one of the few things I could accept being afforded "constitutional law" status separate from being in the constitution. The establishment of the rights of individuals is reasonable to separate from the establishment of the powers and structures of the government, because they are two very different areas. One could amend the government while maintaining that citizens have the same rights as ever. But the nitty gritty of procedure, of process, of how things function? No. Either they are so important that they belong in the constitution with the other foundations of government, or they belong as regular law, subordinate to what the constitution says.