[extropy-chat] Guns--generalized (modifying the constitution)

JDP jacques at dtext.com
Mon Dec 1 17:54:31 UTC 2003


Major a écrit (2.12.2003/00:31) :

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


Here's how it works in Switzerland (quite spectacular, I think).

Switzerland has a political right of "popular initiative", in which
anyone can submit a constitutional amendment, to be voted on by the
people, provided they collect the preliminary support of 100,000
voters (pop. is 7,3 millions) within 18 months. To result in an actual
modification of the Constitution, it needs to get the majority of the
people, and the majority of States.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/pore/index3.html

Incredible isn't it? It's not very complicated to get 100,000
signatures, if you create 50 small comittees in the country which each
get 2000 signatures, you're done. And then, all the Swiss people get
to read your proposal and vote yes or no. If it's yes, then you have
changed the constitution of your country.

To give an example. On May 18 we voted (I am Swiss, live in France,
vote by mail) on 7 such popular initiatives regarding potential
constitutional amendments.

One was to enforce rents to be "fair", one was to have a 4 years
experience of no cars running one day per season, one was to make
commitments of not building nuclear plants for some time, one was to
guarantee cheap access to health services, one was an equal-rights
text to force many institutions to provide facilities for disabled
people, one was about nuclear policy again, and finally one was to
guarantee that professional training be offered to such and such
people.

I voted against all 7 initiatives, and they were all rejected. What do
such subjects have to do with the fundamental law that Constitution is
supposed to be? Right, not much. Basic law is made by parliament like
everywhere else, and popular initiative can only result in the
modification of the Constitution. Which gets proposed often, but is
usually rejected. That's our system.

There are two things which contribute to make constitutional change
through popular initiative rare. One is that the German-speaking part
of Switzerland contains an array of very small States which are very
conservative (they are the founding, still quite rural, States), so
that this relatively small population has a strong weight in the
majority of States. The other one is that the government can add to
the popular initiative its own counter-project, which tries to address
some of the aspirations that prompted the initative, while avoiding
its pitfalls or excesses. It often happens that the people who started
the initiative really had a point, but it was captured in the
counter-project, which was accepted by the people instead of the
initiative.

Between 1891 and 2003, only 13 popular initiatives were accepted and
resulted in the modification of the Constitution. The last one was in
March 2002, when Switzerland decided to adhere to UN. Browsing the
list, I see that in 1908, the production and drinking of absynth was
constitutionally forbidden:

http://www.absinthe.ch/new/monhistoire_linterdiction.php?l=en

It would be quite practical to launch transhumanist-oriented popular
initiatives in Switzerland, to the effect, for example, that one of
the goal of the community is to extend healthy lifespans, and that
adequate credits and research must be devoted to it. And it's a good
way to get to talk about some subject, even if the popular initiative
is eventually rejected. (I can imagine this one being accepted.)

Jacques




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list