Talk:Statute
Someone wrote:
- In latin systems, the practical difference between a constitution and a statute is only academic, usually merely culturally depending on the historical moment or on the form of state in which they are produced: a constitution is better referred to a democracy, while a statute is usually produce by a monach, as a form of concession. But, as said, the difference is very hard to be precisely determined, apart from etymology.
Sorry to be so critical, but this is absolute nonsense. Firstly, in English we say "Civil law system", not "latin system". Secondly, there is a real difference in these countries between constitutions and statutes, and it is very similar to the difference in many common law countries -- namely, constitutions are entrenched (they require a more difficult procedure for enactment or ammendment than ordinary statutes), they deal with fundamental matters of the organization of the organs of state power, and constitutional courts review ordinary statutes against them and strike down those which they find to contradict the constitution. Thirdly, a "constitution" is not necessarily democratic--dictatorships have had constitutions, and theoretically at least a dictatorship could be entirely constitutional--and a "statute" does not necessarily issue from a monarch. So basically, in "latin systems" the difference is more or less identical to in common law ones. (It is true that there are some differences, but they are not fundamental like the author of the above proposes.) -- SJK
Also, I'm a bit concerned by the phrase "ratified by the highest executive in the government". There is no need inherently for a statute to be ratified by the executive. Sure, some countries do this (e.g. UK, Australia, US), but I don't think that forms part of the definition of a statute. In at least some cases in the US, legislation can be passed without approval of the executive--Congress can override a Presidental veto. And who exactly is "the highest executive in the government"? In Australia, legislation must be signed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen--theoretically speaking, the Governor-General is not the highest executive, the Queen is--and practically speaking, since he is basically just a figurehead, he is not the highest executive either (the Prime Minister is, and the Prime Minister cannot stop legislation he opposes, except by using his incomplete control over the members of his party in Parliament). -- SJK
Civil Disobedience. On Revolutionary Measures.
What if one person, or a group of people do not agree with a written statute? Dispute it? What if that still doesn't work? Revolt? How can we (in America) revolt, when the mass majority are stuck in the comfortability of repetitive conditioning beaten into their minds through televised media techniques? How can one man with such a small voice fight against the influence of such a monster as the influential power of mass media? Martyrdom? ' WE the people ' has now become ' I the person ' as a result of the conditioning process brought on by the new age morals of the american public. If the people lead the leaders will follow, however if the people can not put aside their petty differences for the good of a greater cause, it will never happen.