Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Maybe I am naive (mmh, unlikely).
> But shouldn't a constitution be something binding and lasting {#0}??
> Why does it need to be updated every few months or even years (except
> for minor [technical / proceeding-] adjustments that do not constitute
> any substantial change)?
> To meet ad-hoc "requirements" on a day2day basis?
> A constitution should not be treated like a software app where a new
> version is released every 6 months. And where each new version makes
> people forget all of the then suddenly "obsolete" versions.
>
> p.s. In my previous mail I mentioned the (grand!) US-constitution,
> which is in large parts (effectively) out of power for almost hundred
> years now. Who of you readers took the time to read it?
> Before my American friends dislike me for this comment (instead of
> researching a bit), let me explicitly state that the EU monster is no
> bit better, no - unfortunately not. The EU also uses a corrupt Central
> bank system that only a handful understand. Let's also not forget,
> that the EU doesn't permit citizens to vote for or against the
> upcoming constitution in most EU-member states, after the "negative"
> experience in some countries that it might get rejected in a public
> referendum. It is unfortunate that so few folks look beyond what the
> equalized media present them / us day after day.
>
> Ok, back to more shining aspects, namely OpenSolaris.org, x.org and mesa/drm
> ...
>
> A calm thoughtful minute to all.
>
> %m
>
With respect, Martin, I don't think this is the appropriate forum to
debate the US Constitution, as interesting a topic as it is.
benr.
