#1Jan 25th, 2013
The extra-constitutional president. The tyrant-in-chief.
Obama?s recess appointments are unconstitutional - Washington Post
Obama?s recess appointments are unconstitutional - Washington Post
Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
No Party Affiliation
#2
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
Every bible should come with constitutional liner notes.
Bloc Québécois
+2
#3Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss
Every bible should come with constitutional liner notes.
I suppose that in order to reach-out to the uber-liberal crowd and provide the same courtesy, we'd want to include that same liner on the Depends that you require
Free Thinker
+3
#4Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
Of all the things Obama has done, this is the thing that is so horribly extra-constitutional? Someone's got some strange priorities.
Free Thinker
+8
#5 Top Rated PostRe: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
Wow, how simply awful, Walter. Glad you raised this serious issue on a Canadian website.
+2
#6Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
Relevant bureaucratic appointment technicality: conservative outrage!
Illegal war in Pakistan, extra-judicial execution of citizens: crickets.
Go to a hard core liberal group and you'll find them screaming at Obama for all kinds of real bull****. We're way better at criticizing our own, but thanks for coming out guys. *golf clap*
Illegal war in Pakistan, extra-judicial execution of citizens: crickets.
Go to a hard core liberal group and you'll find them screaming at Obama for all kinds of real bull****. We're way better at criticizing our own, but thanks for coming out guys. *golf clap*
#7
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by Spade
Yer welcome.Wow, how simply awful, Walter. Glad you raised this serious issue on a Canadian website.
No Party Affiliation
+2
#8Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
Touched a nerve did we? roflI suppose that in order to reach-out to the uber-liberal crowd and provide the same courtesy, we'd want to include that same liner on the Depends that you require
No Party Affiliation
+4
#9Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
Ha. Appointing bureaucrats constitutes tyranny? I guess that makes every President in history and every PM here a tyrant.
Using the word "tyrant" in a story like this really waters down the term. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin was a tyrant, Kim Jonh Il was a tyrant. A democratically elected head of state who will be out of office in four years no matter what - is not a tyrant. And yes, I'd say that about Bush too.
Using the word "tyrant" in a story like this really waters down the term. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin was a tyrant, Kim Jonh Il was a tyrant. A democratically elected head of state who will be out of office in four years no matter what - is not a tyrant. And yes, I'd say that about Bush too.
Bloc Québécois
#10
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss
Nah... I just like yanking your chain.Touched a nerve did we? rofl
BTW - The Depends thing was just a gag - whodda thunk that you actually used 'em?
No Party Affiliation
+3
#11Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by Walter
Holy crap! As a Canuckian, I am acrimonious! Imagine the repercussions of this! I think Canada should declare war on the States n teach em a lesson for being so negligent of democracy!The extra-constitutional president. The tyrant-in-chief.
Obama?s recess appointments are unconstitutional - Washington Post
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
Well a constitution is the first article of a civilized society be it left or right and
not everyone agrees with the constitution depending on the issue. However it
is the societal glue that holds us together. I am not surprised that some will not
want or need a constitution, because they have a fundamental problem with
being civilized.
At the same time people condemn the constitution they defend its articles that
allow for ownership of guns. At the same time they condemn the articles they
want the right to vote. And the left does the same thing. People should actually
become acquainted with the articles of their nations constitution.
Can you imagine living in the Middle East or North Korea? Those people are
fighting for those very rights. Although someone disagrees with the constitution
they still want democracy. If you take a look at the rest of the world believe me
you need a stinking constitution.
not everyone agrees with the constitution depending on the issue. However it
is the societal glue that holds us together. I am not surprised that some will not
want or need a constitution, because they have a fundamental problem with
being civilized.
At the same time people condemn the constitution they defend its articles that
allow for ownership of guns. At the same time they condemn the articles they
want the right to vote. And the left does the same thing. People should actually
become acquainted with the articles of their nations constitution.
Can you imagine living in the Middle East or North Korea? Those people are
fighting for those very rights. Although someone disagrees with the constitution
they still want democracy. If you take a look at the rest of the world believe me
you need a stinking constitution.
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by WLDB
Only because george the lessor isn't bright enough to understand what the word means.Ha. Appointing bureaucrats constitutes tyranny? I guess that makes every President in history and every PM here a tyrant.
Using the word "tyrant" in a story like this really waters down the term. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin was a tyrant, Kim Jonh Il was a tyrant. A democratically elected head of state who will be out of office in four years no matter what - is not a tyrant. And yes, I'd say that about Bush too.
No Party Affiliation
#14
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
The list of all those tyrants, and here i thought they were merely eccentric.
When it comes to tyrants no one can say one was worse than the others
as they were all tyrants. Once one person was killed unjustly tyranny is
in place. The intent is what counts here.
Therefore with all of his warts and foibles I wouldn't say Bush was a tyrant.
He still had the limiting factor of the constitution. Yes he could violate it in
Cuba but not on American soil. America has survived a lot of things and will
survive a lot more over time, that is what makes a country stronger in the long
run. Strength is born out of adversity. My mother used to say "If it doesn't kill
you it will make you stronger" and the world learns that lesson every couple
of generations.
When it comes to tyrants no one can say one was worse than the others
as they were all tyrants. Once one person was killed unjustly tyranny is
in place. The intent is what counts here.
Therefore with all of his warts and foibles I wouldn't say Bush was a tyrant.
He still had the limiting factor of the constitution. Yes he could violate it in
Cuba but not on American soil. America has survived a lot of things and will
survive a lot more over time, that is what makes a country stronger in the long
run. Strength is born out of adversity. My mother used to say "If it doesn't kill
you it will make you stronger" and the world learns that lesson every couple
of generations.
No Party Affiliation
+4
#15Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by Walter
The extra-constitutional president. The tyrant-in-chief.
Obama?s recess appointments are unconstitutional - Washington Post
Presidents have always made "recess appointments"—because the Constitution provides for them. It's right there in Article II: "[t]he President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate."
President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments. President Bill Clinton made 139. Heck, even President Andrew Johnson made at least 14 recess appointments.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-abuse-power-argument-recess-appointments/story?id=18317935
Obama made three and this makes him a "tyrant".
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Free Thinker
#16
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy
Violate it in Cuba but not at home? Are you nuts? Are you aware of the Patriot Act? That one piece of legislation basically shredded the constitution. Now Obama has added the ability for rendition on his own citizens on US soil. Constitution.....what constitution? It doesn't exist any more. With 'executive orders' and legislation for the citizens protection from terrorism the constitution is gone and likely will never come back until there is an armed insurrection and the govt is overthrown and rebuilt from scratch.The list of all those tyrants, and here i thought they were merely eccentric.
When it comes to tyrants no one can say one was worse than the others
as they were all tyrants. Once one person was killed unjustly tyranny is
in place. The intent is what counts here.
Therefore with all of his warts and foibles I wouldn't say Bush was a tyrant.
He still had the limiting factor of the constitution. Yes he could violate it in
Cuba but not on American soil. America has survived a lot of things and will
survive a lot more over time, that is what makes a country stronger in the long
run. Strength is born out of adversity. My mother used to say "If it doesn't kill
you it will make you stronger" and the world learns that lesson every couple
of generations.
No Party Affiliation
+2
#17Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 25th, 2013
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Kercheval
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Kercheval
+1
#18Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
From the OP link.....Presidents have always made "recess appointments"—because the Constitution provides for them. It's right there in Article II: "[t]he President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate."
President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments. President Bill Clinton made 139. Heck, even President Andrew Johnson made at least 14 recess appointments.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-abuse-power-argument-recess-appointments/story?id=18317935
Obama made three and this makes him a "tyrant".
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!Although originally conceived by the Framers for a time when communicating with and summoning senators back to the Capitol might take weeks, it is still valid in a modern age — but only as long as the Senate is in recess. Not only was the Senate not in recess when these purported appointments were made, it constitutionally could not have been.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
+1
#20Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by petros
deep breaths before posting is good for tourettesSpastics fans....
+1
#21Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013
Is that what you do? Is that a some sort of Spastic warm up routine? No crunches or anything like that?
+2
#22Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir
The American Constitution is full of amendments so what Obama is doing is OK. The original document allowed slaveryOf all the things Obama has done, this is the thing that is so horribly extra-constitutional? Someone's got some strange priorities.
+1
#23Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman
Amendments are made by approval of super majorities of congress and the states not by a single person. So, what the Bamster is trying to do is tyrannical.The American Constitution is full of amendments so what Obama is doing is OK. The original document allowed slavery
Liberal
+3
#24Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013
I am of two minds on this issue.
First, it is clear to me that, at least according to the letter of the Constitution of the United States of America, that the President's actions were, on the face of them, improper and unconstitutional based on article II, section 2 of the Constitution. The fact is that the President is not a "supervisor" of the Houses of Congress, and does not have the authority to purport to "interpret" whether or not the Senate has recessed. It is either recessed, or it is not, and it cannot be recessed without the consent of the other House.
That being said, it is equally as clear to me that an advice-and-consent role cannot possibly be performed by the Senate while it is stuck in a series of pro forma sessions. It seems to me that to allow the House of Representatives to refuse to allow the Senate to recess, and for the Houses to then enter into pro forma sessions which, by their very nature, mean that no business is conducted, is an abuse of the Constitution. This provision is being abused by the House to prevent the use of an executive power that is rightfully vested in the Office of the President.
First, it is clear to me that, at least according to the letter of the Constitution of the United States of America, that the President's actions were, on the face of them, improper and unconstitutional based on article II, section 2 of the Constitution. The fact is that the President is not a "supervisor" of the Houses of Congress, and does not have the authority to purport to "interpret" whether or not the Senate has recessed. It is either recessed, or it is not, and it cannot be recessed without the consent of the other House.
That being said, it is equally as clear to me that an advice-and-consent role cannot possibly be performed by the Senate while it is stuck in a series of pro forma sessions. It seems to me that to allow the House of Representatives to refuse to allow the Senate to recess, and for the Houses to then enter into pro forma sessions which, by their very nature, mean that no business is conducted, is an abuse of the Constitution. This provision is being abused by the House to prevent the use of an executive power that is rightfully vested in the Office of the President.
No Party Affiliation
+1
#26Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013
PoliticalNick you got my point. He wasn't a tyrant he didn't do terrible things at home
he did them in Cuba. It is how they seperated forgeign and domestice policy. They
couldn't do it at home so they made it legal somewhere else.
Besides they are in a bigger problem now they used to send people to Syria to be
tortured but that is no longer an option. Remember the Caadian guy who spent time
in Syria shipped there from the States?
America is the land of contradictions, as long as the evil is done somewhere else there
is apparently no violation of the constitution. It is also the reason why they wonn't turn
over Amreican citizens to the international courts.
I am merely pointing out the foibles I didn't say they had to make sense. Undering the
reasoning use Bush was not a tyrant.
he did them in Cuba. It is how they seperated forgeign and domestice policy. They
couldn't do it at home so they made it legal somewhere else.
Besides they are in a bigger problem now they used to send people to Syria to be
tortured but that is no longer an option. Remember the Caadian guy who spent time
in Syria shipped there from the States?
America is the land of contradictions, as long as the evil is done somewhere else there
is apparently no violation of the constitution. It is also the reason why they wonn't turn
over Amreican citizens to the international courts.
I am merely pointing out the foibles I didn't say they had to make sense. Undering the
reasoning use Bush was not a tyrant.
#27
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013
I used to underrate constitution as well, but when you're seventh level and you only have 36 hit points, it's time for a rethink.
No Party Affiliation
#28
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013Quote: Originally Posted by jariax
?I used to underrate constitution as well, but when you're seventh level and you only have 36 hit points, it's time for a rethink.
Might as well have been in Greek like those other posts.
No Party Affiliation
#29
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Jan 26th, 2013Quote:
From the OP link.....
Quote:Although originally conceived by the Framers for a time when communicating with and summoning senators back to the Capitol might take weeks, it is still valid in a modern age — but only as long as the Senate is in recess. Not only was the Senate not in recess when these purported appointments were made, it constitutionally could not have been.
And as the original WP article indicates, the Appellate Court's decision contradicts its past decisions.
#30
Re: Constitution, I don't need no stinking constitution
Mar 8th, 2013
U.S. Gun Rights Truly Are American Exceptionalism
By Zachary Elkins & Tom Ginsburg & James Melton Mar 7, 2013 5:30 PM CT
Our study of constitutions going back to 1789 shows that only a minority has ever included gun rights. What’s more, the number has dwindled, leaving a small and motley set of bedfellows.
Enlarge image
Enlarge image
For some, this lonely position is enough to suggest that the U.S. should rethink the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. For others, it is a reason to celebrate American exceptionalism.
Either way, the U.S. gun-rights debate raises intriguing questions about how other countries have addressed the issue in their constitutions. When were such rights predominant (if at all), which countries have had them, and how were these rights expressed?
Constitutions have been largely silent about such rights, and increasingly so. Twenty-four constitutions from nine countries have included gun rights in some form since 1789. Most of these constitutions date from the 1800s, and since World War II, no country has written a constitution with such a right without first having done so in the 19th century.
Truly Exceptional
This pattern reinforces the widely held notion that the right to bear arms is a vestige of a distant era. Constitutional customs tend to stick once they are enshrined, even when countries replace or revise their constitutions. While this inertia partly explains the American retention of the right to bear arms, it also shows how truly exceptional gun rights are: Countries that had the right have actively chosen to reject it in subsequent constitutions.
Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well- represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.
If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them. Today, only three out of nearly 200 constitutions contain a right to bear arms.
We have come to view constitutional rights like a one-way ratchet -- their popularity moves inexorably in only one direction, and that is up. The decline in popularity of the right to bear arms indicates that there is something very different about it, as opposed to other civil, political, social and economic rights. Most probably, the right invokes an anachronism, somewhat like the protection against “quartering soldiers” in the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or it invokes moral understandings of another era.
Which countries have had such rights historically? In the 19th century, they were mostly in the Americas, and that remains true. Given the strong influence of the U.S. constitutional text in the region, this pattern makes sense. Still, only eight of the 25 or so Latin American countries ever took on the right. The only non-Latin American country to do so was Liberia, a country founded by black Americans who used the U.S. Constitution as a model.
Countries such as Costa Rica briefly experimented with gun rights. Others, such as Colombia, maintained these rights for long spells before dropping them. Most, like Guatemala, have cycled back and forth between omission and inclusion. None has maintained the right continually throughout its constitutional history, which indicates a certain amount of ambivalence.
Right Rationale
For countries that include the right, how do they express it? The U.S., of course, justifies the right in terms of a “well-regulated militia,” but this is unusual. Most constitutions do not provide any sort of rationale, but there are some exceptions.
The Nicaraguan constitution, for example, was introduced in 1987 after left-leaning forces gained control. It provided Nicaraguans “the right to arm themselves in defense of their sovereignty, independence and revolutionary gains. It is the duty of the state to direct, organize and arm the people to guarantee this right.”
The U.S. constitution is alone in omitting any written conditions under which the government can regulate arms and munitions. In other countries, the right is typically limited to self-defense, either of the home or the state itself. Guatemala gives its citizens the right to own weapons for personal use in the home and states that citizens can only be forced to relinquish guns by judicial order. Haiti gives citizens the right to use guns to defend the home but explicitly denies a general right to bear arms.
Of course, U.S. courts have allowed some exceptions to unconditional gun ownership in the form of local, state and federal statutes restricting ownership or possession of firearms. In this way, the courts have served to render constitutional law somewhat less exceptional than the text itself would suggest.
Until 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court had never struck down a law aimed at regulating guns. That year, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller and, two years later, McDonald v.Chicago, the court held that states could not restrict the ownership of handguns for self-defense. These rulings have made the U.S. even more exceptionally exceptional.
(Zachary Elkins is a professor of government at the University of Texas. Tom Ginsburg is a professor of international law at the University of Chicago Law School. James Melton is a lecturer in comparative politics at University College London. They run the National Science Foundation-funded Comparative Constitutions Project, which analyzes national constitutions since 1789. The opinions expressed are their own.)
To contact the writers of this article: Zachary Elkins at zelkins@austin.utexas.edu Tom Ginsburg at tginsburg@uchicago.edu James Melton at james.douglas.melton@gmail.com
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Paula Dwyer at pdwyer11@bloomberg.net.
By Zachary Elkins & Tom Ginsburg & James Melton Mar 7, 2013 5:30 PM CT
- Facebook Share
- Tweet
- Google +1
- 5 COMMENTS
- QUEUE
Q
Our study of constitutions going back to 1789 shows that only a minority has ever included gun rights. What’s more, the number has dwindled, leaving a small and motley set of bedfellows.
Enlarge image
Enlarge image
For some, this lonely position is enough to suggest that the U.S. should rethink the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. For others, it is a reason to celebrate American exceptionalism.
Either way, the U.S. gun-rights debate raises intriguing questions about how other countries have addressed the issue in their constitutions. When were such rights predominant (if at all), which countries have had them, and how were these rights expressed?
Constitutions have been largely silent about such rights, and increasingly so. Twenty-four constitutions from nine countries have included gun rights in some form since 1789. Most of these constitutions date from the 1800s, and since World War II, no country has written a constitution with such a right without first having done so in the 19th century.
Truly Exceptional
This pattern reinforces the widely held notion that the right to bear arms is a vestige of a distant era. Constitutional customs tend to stick once they are enshrined, even when countries replace or revise their constitutions. While this inertia partly explains the American retention of the right to bear arms, it also shows how truly exceptional gun rights are: Countries that had the right have actively chosen to reject it in subsequent constitutions.
Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well- represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.
If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them. Today, only three out of nearly 200 constitutions contain a right to bear arms.
We have come to view constitutional rights like a one-way ratchet -- their popularity moves inexorably in only one direction, and that is up. The decline in popularity of the right to bear arms indicates that there is something very different about it, as opposed to other civil, political, social and economic rights. Most probably, the right invokes an anachronism, somewhat like the protection against “quartering soldiers” in the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or it invokes moral understandings of another era.
Which countries have had such rights historically? In the 19th century, they were mostly in the Americas, and that remains true. Given the strong influence of the U.S. constitutional text in the region, this pattern makes sense. Still, only eight of the 25 or so Latin American countries ever took on the right. The only non-Latin American country to do so was Liberia, a country founded by black Americans who used the U.S. Constitution as a model.
Countries such as Costa Rica briefly experimented with gun rights. Others, such as Colombia, maintained these rights for long spells before dropping them. Most, like Guatemala, have cycled back and forth between omission and inclusion. None has maintained the right continually throughout its constitutional history, which indicates a certain amount of ambivalence.
Right Rationale
For countries that include the right, how do they express it? The U.S., of course, justifies the right in terms of a “well-regulated militia,” but this is unusual. Most constitutions do not provide any sort of rationale, but there are some exceptions.
The Nicaraguan constitution, for example, was introduced in 1987 after left-leaning forces gained control. It provided Nicaraguans “the right to arm themselves in defense of their sovereignty, independence and revolutionary gains. It is the duty of the state to direct, organize and arm the people to guarantee this right.”
The U.S. constitution is alone in omitting any written conditions under which the government can regulate arms and munitions. In other countries, the right is typically limited to self-defense, either of the home or the state itself. Guatemala gives its citizens the right to own weapons for personal use in the home and states that citizens can only be forced to relinquish guns by judicial order. Haiti gives citizens the right to use guns to defend the home but explicitly denies a general right to bear arms.
Of course, U.S. courts have allowed some exceptions to unconditional gun ownership in the form of local, state and federal statutes restricting ownership or possession of firearms. In this way, the courts have served to render constitutional law somewhat less exceptional than the text itself would suggest.
Until 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court had never struck down a law aimed at regulating guns. That year, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller and, two years later, McDonald v.Chicago, the court held that states could not restrict the ownership of handguns for self-defense. These rulings have made the U.S. even more exceptionally exceptional.
(Zachary Elkins is a professor of government at the University of Texas. Tom Ginsburg is a professor of international law at the University of Chicago Law School. James Melton is a lecturer in comparative politics at University College London. They run the National Science Foundation-funded Comparative Constitutions Project, which analyzes national constitutions since 1789. The opinions expressed are their own.)
To contact the writers of this article: Zachary Elkins at zelkins@austin.utexas.edu Tom Ginsburg at tginsburg@uchicago.edu James Melton at james.douglas.melton@gmail.com
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Paula Dwyer at pdwyer11@bloomberg.net.
Similar Threads
36
11
25
22
0