[extropy-chat] Guns--generalized

[Major]

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net> writes:

> I don't know how this legal constitution caper works (being a benighted
> Aussie), but a few questions spring to mind.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, so I will answer the
questions "straight".

> Suppose slavery had been enshrined from the outset in the
> Constitution, Would it not be permitted to change these rights and
> exclusions?

A constitution can only be amended (retained but changed) according
to its own provisions. The basis in international law for completely
replacing a constitution is complicated but may be summarized "if you
have the most guns you will get away with it".

> Suppose enough citizens wanted to forbid the sale and consumption of
> alcoholic beverages, even though that had been implicitly a
> right until then? And if the ban were legally inserted into the legal
> constitution

Exactly what happened in the US (prohibition was a constitutional
amendment)

> would there be a legal constitutional way to get rid of it on
> second thoughts? And then to reimpose it on third thoughts?

If and only if your constitution has an "amendment" clause. Both
the US and Australian constitution do, though it is interesting to note
that the power to change the constitution in the US rests with the
congress (2/3 majority), not the people (referendum) as it does in
Australia.

Major