Germany - Hungary is a disgrace for Europe.

[Valmy]

I dunno - I've found that while my own brand of conservatism has chanegd over the years (I was once much more libertarian, less realistic), I can't say I've become any less right wing than I was before.

Well I wasn't referring to you specifically

[Razgovory]

It seems odd to me that a small country like Hungary even has a constitution.  It's a lot easier to change one of those in a small country then a big one, almost to the point where a constitution isn't much of a defense.

What are you on about?

The size of the country determines the need for an institutional and legal framework? 

How is it easier to change it in a small country? Because it's made of cheese? Or written with crayons?

We have ink. And even laser printers. And you still need 2/3 and 3/4 majorities to amend the constitution in Norway. Which I suppose is "small".

In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US.  In the US, each state has it's own constitution.  In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent.  At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.

[Zanza2]

I think the German federal constitution changes more often than the state constitutions. It's amended/changed every other year or so, usually some miniscule change, but sometimes it's something big too. Our federal system needs a two thirds majority in both houses, but no ratification process like in the US.

The EU "constitution", i.e. the treaty framework that defines the EU, changes faster than the US constitution too, but that's certainly not because the process in the EU is simpler, just witness the agonizing Lisbon Treaty process that took much of the 2000s. It's just a different legal tradition.

You always hear the "big country is harder to change" argument from Americans, but I don't think that size is really the main factor here. I think it's down to other features of the US system, including its tradition of not changing the constitution often.

[Norgy]

In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US.  In the US, each state has it's own constitution.  In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent.  At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.

Tell that to the Belgians, or even the Dutch.
Hungary's population is, as far as I know, not entirely ethnically homogenous, but linguistic and ethnic homogenity aside, social and religious difference may make constitutional guarantees just as important. May I point to: Ireland, or more specifically the province of Ulster.

And that's really my point. Constitutions serve not just to protect your right to buy assault rifles and worship a Living Doll, but also to guarantee minority rights. I am not sure if you have heard of the area, but in Europe we have this linguistic and ethnic patchwork called "The Balkans". It's around the Roman provinces of Illyrium, Dacia and Pannonia and thereabouts. Much of the trouble there stems from a lack of good constitutions and especially a lack of enforcing them.

I'd also like to point to much smaller countries than the US that practise, or did practise, federalism, namely Yugoslavia. So does Germany. And Russia. Which is big. 

Size and the need for constitutional guarantees or indeed constitutions do not correlate. At all.

[Slargos]

In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US.  In the US, each state has it's own constitution.  In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent.  At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.

Tell that to the Belgians, or even the Dutch.
Hungary's population is, as far as I know, not entirely ethnically homogenous, but linguistic and ethnic homogenity aside, social and religious difference may make constitutional guarantees just as important. May I point to: Ireland, or more specifically the province of Ulster.

And that's really my point. Constitutions serve not just to protect your right to buy assault rifles and worship a Living Doll, but also to guarantee minority rights. I am not sure if you have heard of the area, but in Europe we have this linguistic and ethnic patchwork called "The Balkans". It's around the Roman provinces of Illyrium, Dacia and Pannonia and thereabouts. Much of the trouble there stems from a lack of good constitutions and especially a lack of enforcing them.

I'd also like to point to much smaller countries than the US that practise, or did practise, federalism, namely Yugoslavia. So does Germany. And Russia. Which is big. 

Size and the need for constitutional guarantees or indeed constitutions do not correlate. At all.

I see what you did there. 

[grumbler]

You always hear the "big country is harder to change" argument from Americans, but I don't think that size is really the main factor here. I think it's down to other features of the US system, including its tradition of not changing the constitution often.

I've never heard the "big country is harder to change" argument from Americans or anyone else, though that is just anecdotal evidence.  The key feature of the US system is that the Constitution is actually very small, and leaves most details to legislation.  It therefor needs to be changed only very infrequently.  Most of the changes to a typical Euro constitution are simply changes in Federal statute law in the US.

[Razgovory]

In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US.  In the US, each state has it's own constitution.  In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent.  At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.

Tell that to the Belgians, or even the Dutch.
Hungary's population is, as far as I know, not entirely ethnically homogenous, but linguistic and ethnic homogenity aside, social and religious difference may make constitutional guarantees just as important. May I point to: Ireland, or more specifically the province of Ulster.

And that's really my point. Constitutions serve not just to protect your right to buy assault rifles and worship a Living Doll, but also to guarantee minority rights. I am not sure if you have heard of the area, but in Europe we have this linguistic and ethnic patchwork called "The Balkans". It's around the Roman provinces of Illyrium, Dacia and Pannonia and thereabouts. Much of the trouble there stems from a lack of good constitutions and especially a lack of enforcing them.

I'd also like to point to much smaller countries than the US that practise, or did practise, federalism, namely Yugoslavia. So does Germany. And Russia. Which is big. 

Size and the need for constitutional guarantees or indeed constitutions do not correlate. At all.

What ever you say doc.

[Martinus]

In short, if you have three Europeans, two of them will probably find a reason to do a pogrom of the third one.

[Slargos]

In short, if you have three Europeans, two of them will probably find a reason to do a pogrom of the third one.

My list of reasons for pogroms against the Polack race contain the word "Martinus" in the first 57 items.