But it doesn't make sense to hold on to the Bill of Rights as if it's some sort of unchanging collection of truths. As I said before, the 3rd (for example) has become pretty pointless in our time and age.

And the 4th has been hollowed out completely because it doesn't specifically mention your privacy in terms of (wireless, electronic) communications or stuff like that. Simply because it didn't exist or make sense in the days of the founding fathers doesn't mean it doesn't now.

The idea behind the Bill of Rights is noble (if a little spiced with Enlightenment naïvité), but regarding it as an evident truth - or worse, regarding everything that isn't in it as optional just isn't right. Times change, so do we. 1700 is a long time ago. Some ideas like freedom of speech, religion, etc. and legal representation are clearly either timeless or bound to the fabric of the society itself and shouldn't be changed. But the ones that are clearly dating from the times when pioneering farmers were expecting the UK to come crashing down their potato fields are just silly. They should replace them with something that actually has a point (and is urgent) in this world: invasion of personal privacy and modern civil and economic challenges.

One of the points of it is that you can't get rid of any... without making a new one that counteracts it. If you could, all it would take is one oppressive government to abolish the right to assembly, speech, and arms and bam, we'd be a dictatorship.

Regarding law, it's only the basis for law... law itself can do pretty much anything and is ruled by laws and precedence. The constitution is just a framework. As for interpreting how a 200+ year old document applies to modern times, that's what the Supreme Court is for.

Anyway, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Regarding the applicability of the constitution, what about the Belgian constitution? Like Title II, Act 24, "Education is free; any preventative measure is forbidden; the repression of offences is only governed by law or decree. ". So why do people in Belgium have to pay for college?

Yeah, part of my point was that it's no use to hanging on to it like it's gospel simply because it doesn't stop anyone from being a dictator if things really come down to it. E.g. I doubt the founding fathers would have agreed with the Patriot Act. In fact I think they would have burned the white house down. But whatever. Having said that, I think we're actually in agreement on some level, just not on the perspective.

re: education free...it's talking about basic education which is free. And if you can't afford to buy books for your children etc you get grants for that. As far as college is concerned, it's not really free but if you're not rich enough to pay the tuition fee (about 1000 € a year typically which is a joke compared to some countries) you get grants as well. They come in various degrees - full if you can't pay shit, partial if you're not poor but not rich either. My dad is self-employed and had a bad year while me and my brothers were in college, so we got about 40% of our tuition fees in grants even though my family is hardly poor.

If you consider that the only other requirement for attending college is having a high school degree, it means that basically anyone can get to college regardless of their grades, income or personal history. Works pretty well.

Education is free, to some extent.

Up untill 12 years old school is truly free. I stopped following it all, but i believe even school materials (like pens) should be provided (free) to all pupils.

After that, there are some expenses for school materials and such, but you don't pay education fees or something. Education is still free.

So untill you turn 18 you haven't paid a single cent for your education (depending on how you look at this).

When people go to college, they're 18 or older. In Belgium we are more or less obligated to go to school untill 18 (it's mandatory to get education, for most people this means going to school). So once that stops, it makes sense to ask (little as ox says) money for more education.

But you can probably find some other examples in any constitution i guess.

heh, I really wasn't picking on you guys about your silly constitution. Education is free in the US until 18 as well. It's also mandatory, though I'm not sure if it's mandatory all the way through 18. It's just interesting that something like that finds its way into the constitution.

I dunno...isn't right to education one of the basic human rights? As such it should probably be a part of every constitution. Personally, I think it's probably one of the most important things to emphasize in any legal frame. More important than the 5th amendment for sure.

P.S. I am aware of the relative meaningless of the UN chapters of "fundamental human rights". But it's a noble initiative regardless.

you're just secretly a communist. admit it before we put you in "the chair" and have to use the "dental drill of truth" on you.

It's not so odd that the right to education is in the Belgian constitution. Most Western-European constitutions were written in the 19th century, and that's the peak time of liberalism*, of which education is a core principle.

*And with liberalism I don't mean socialism, you yank bastards.

Yeah, personal betterment will save the universe and all that jazz. The European liberal movement (especially the naïve one of days past) can be compared more to libertarianism trends in the US than anything else I think. While the Republican party is all for liberal economics, it's mired in a Christian-conservative morality that doesn't really agree well with most liberals. E.g. in Belgium most high-ranking liberal party members are freemasoners...so yeah, not too big on religion.

Usually vote socialist myself, but only because I have to vote. More of a status quo vote - right wing parties getting too strong and annoying me so i vote agains them - than really ideological, but whatever. I'm sure I come over as the communist superdevil for most Americans.

evil bastards!

Most of our original rulers were Freemasons.

Freemasons is a religon. 99% of the lower degrees have no idea what it is.

Education as a right? So that means I have a right to the best most expensive schools money can buy, free of charge to me? Since its my right?

Thats an interesting point of view, care to elaborate on it?

Yes and no. Liberalism doesn't have a Bible that let's you look up dogmas that easily, but as a principle, if you're able to follow a certain level of education, you should be able to, regardless of your parents' wealth. If you're to stupid for the best level of education, too bad for you.
It's a meritocracy if done right.

most education systems I've seen are less a meritocracy and more a mediocracy.

Zing!

To be fair though, most high schools - that aren't specialized 'technical/professional' schools - that I know here are relatively good. Most of North-Western Europe tends to score well with its high schools internationally. Apart from the inevitable Korean, Japanese and Hong Kong insane-o-drill schools we tend to be at the top

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

The US typically does bad in these rankings not because it has generally crappy schools, but because the quality of high schools is vastly variable. The best American high schools are with the best in the world, but the worst rank up (down?) there with 3rd world country levels. So yes, there is 'free education' in the US as well, but in reality the good schools are private and cost handfuls of money. I don't even think there are real private schools in Belgium...there are two big networks (Catholic school and Community schools) and because the level is generally high, tuition is free and you're free to sign up at any school there is very real freedom of education.