Comments on: The Kenyan Constitution – Natalie Solent was correct

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:15:10 +0000

Yes Sir – if a Constitution is a “Christmas tree of rights” then really it is saying that a “right” is just a nice thing the government gives you.

The opposite of the traditional view of a “right” as a limitation on government power.

It becomes, as you say, a joke – and a very bad joke at that.

By: Endivio R

Endivio R — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:49:28 +0000

FWIW, here in Ecuador we got ourselves a brand new constitution not long ago, which I believe is the longest in the world, and these comments about the Kenyan one make me think that there’s a fashion element here, and constitutions are being worn tight on the neck and loose around the government this decade. Ours gives citizens (and not only citizens, but also imponderables such as “nature”) an embarrassment of rights, but rather cleverly avoids the question of which rights prevail over which by explicitly stating that no part of the Constitution has precedence over any other, which in practice means that the Constitutional Court, composed of government appointees, has virtually unlimited powers of arbitrary interpretation. The Constitutional Assembly which came up with this ridiculous document was, as you might expect, packed with socialist government handwavers with no legal training who spent so much time chattering about the feasibility of such things as a “right to sexual pleasure” (I kid you not) that they were overtaken by a deadline and ended up voting for a document they hadn’t even read, that came down from On High amid a flourish of celestial trumpets.

By: TimP

TimP — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:19:12 +0000

whOOps, yeah that’s pretty much why I’m against a “Bill of Rights” here in Australia as well.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:33:26 +0000

Snag has a point – I do attack the Economist far more than I do Time or Newsweek (or, in fact, any publication).

Why do I do this?

Very simple – the Economist pretends to be a “free market” supporting magazine. In spite of its supporting TARP, the “Stimulus” concept (i.e. spending more money is the correct way to react in a recession – i.e. the “demand” economic fallacy) , Obamacare (yet more regulations to drive UP health costs) and so on.

And of course it declared (in an infamous front cover) that Obama was the “Renewal of America”.

It is the basic DISHONESTY of the Economist (a statist publication pretending to be a “free market” supporting one) that angers me. It is the FRAUD.

Still with a 17% decline in the Economist’s American sales (although Newsweek and Time declined even more – they declined by about a third paid copy sales) perhaps I am treating it as more important than it is.

whOOps – sadly I think you are correct. I wish you were not but…..

By: wh00ps

wh00ps — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:55:31 +0000

One of the reasons I oppose a written constitution here in the UK is that it would undoubtably end up very similar, given the quality of those who would frame it..

By: Snag

Snag — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:01:50 +0000

It wouldn’t be Friday without a Paul Marks attack on the Economist