Judge Ginsburg on Egypt's constitution

[Sigaba]

From a historiographical perspective, Ginsburg's comments provide food for thought. Long before contemporary political and legal debates over original meanings and intent, our forebearers struggled mightily--and not always successfully--with the contested meanings of the constitution. The proper division of power between the federal state and the individual states was but one such issue.

Thanks to the lack of power among other nations inhabiting North America, some of the bigger issues were deferred (and a few defused) by our expansion "from sea to shining sea." Thanks to our nation's relative geographic isolation, many of these issues were worked out (for worse and for better) without Americans needing to worry too badly about how the powers of the world might exploit the uncertainty to their advantage. Thanks to the built in limitations of military technology prior to the turn of to previous century, armed conflict over key constitutional issues was not as destructive as many combatants wished.

Do any of these factors presently apply to any African country looking to write a constitution that establishes a system of government centered around the rights of individuals and the rule of law?

Incidentally, the text of the RSA's constitution and its amendments are available here, its bill of rights is here, and a brief history of that document is available there. Here's an interesting excerpt from the latter link.

The Atlantic Charter, which Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill sign in 1941, lays the basis for a bill of rights in South Africa. In 1943 the ANC's first attempt at such a document, African Claims, is [modeled] on this charter[.]

For the sake of readers' convenience, here's a link to the Atlantic Charter <<LINK>>. From the charter's introductory paragraphs.

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

In short, long before the formal process of drafting the RSA's constitution began, it was already informed by the basic tenets of American political philosophy.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Given that our (collective) morality and religiosity has degraded somewhat from the ideals advocated/expected by John Adams, is it still adequate to govern us?

(My contention - any social compact is only as credible as the character of its adherents - and only as enforceable as the effort the body politic is willing to expend to force compliance [usually manifested as the blunt application of brute force]. YMMV)

Concerning the degredation of which you speak, the consequences thereof, and the adequacy of the Constitution: few addressed it better than Benjamin Franklin did on September 17, 1787.

http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by kawaishi

How can someone speak these words without the brief flicker of thought that it might be the most successful framing document ever written and hence the age? Reminds me of someone else recently complaining about those pesky founding fathers and their ideas

Brief flicker of thought? Try reading a few of her opinions, especially in disent.
"Her comments have stunned writers across the conservative blogosphere" I'll bet that just made her cry.

Justice Ginsberg's confirmation hearings were amazing because, dispite her past liberal reputation and rulings, she was evaluated on the quality of her decisions not whether those decisions were popular with the opinionated.
Won't see that again anytime soon.

From the South Africian Constitution

Preamble
We, the people of South Africa,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to *Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.

The rest is here: http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/