There's an implied freedom of political speech. The rest can be regulated by law. By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of divinely bestowed natural law document is highly unusual. For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament.
This comment looks like it got voted down, probably because the tone sounds a little patronising to what it characterises as the American view. But nothing it says is to my knowledge inaccurate or even a twisting of facts.
The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law.
This view is highly unusual.
The Australian constitution IS literally an act of parliament to my understanding.
Freedom of speech IS only intimated by the courts and is not explicitly stated in any part of the Australian constitution.
"The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law.
This view is highly unusual."
It's not highly unusual, see my comment below: it's normative.
As for 'natural law' - well, the Canadian constitution essentially indicates that our rights are bestowed by the 'Supremacy of God' [1] which is kind of like 'natural law'.
Your comment below doesn't demonstrate that constitutions being considered statements of natural law is normative at all. Constitutions far outdate the very concept of natural law, and your comment doesn't contain any evidence that this has become the norm in modern times.
I dunno if I accept that the Canadian constitution does or not, it doesn't matter, one other country would not tip the balance.
> Constitutions far outdated the very concept of natural law
Really? I would trace the concept of natural law at least back to Aquinas (13th century) if not antiquity. Constitutional law as part of a secular democracy, on the other hand, I wouldn't trace back much further than the U.S. Constitution, or at most its 17th century predecessors. Magna Carta wasn't really a constitution.
Considering the ancient Greeks basically made a hobby of discussing what the ideal constitution is, I would say the concept is far older than even the first twinkling of the concept of natural law.
(My comment below this one was meant to be directed as to the existence of speech laws, not the US constitution's position on 'natural laws')
It's basically wrong to suggest that somehow the US's constitutional assertion indicating certain rights are 'natural' is somehow problematic - or even unique.
The 'existential and inalienable rights of human beings' have been recognized not only in constitutional and legal forms throughout the world, but in various other texts and declarations.
As I mentioned, the Canadian constitution refers directly to divine providence. (Which is another way of saying 'natural rights')
The 'Basic Law' in Germany starts with this text:
"Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,
Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law."
This is definitely an existential assertion.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts like this:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"
So they refer to inherent dignity which is essentially another way of saying 'natural right'.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation:
"We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples"
Once again universally recognized principles yada yada ...
Poland:
"We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty, As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources, Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland,"
Greek constitution starts like this:
"THE CONSTITUTION OF GREECE In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity"
(Admittedly, it doesn't quite specify those things as sources of rights or provenance)
Not surprisingly, most Arab state Constitutions defer to 'God' as the source of their ultimate authority, but again maybe unsurprisingly, don't dwell a lot on 'rights'. But from the 2012 Syrian constitution: "Freedom shall be a sacred right" - again alluding to the transcendental nature of certain rights.
Shall I go on?
Note that Australia (the nation in question here), and a whole host of other nations which do not specifically hint at the existential nature of human rights in their own texts, are in fact signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which legally enshrined the quote above. So that's going to add Sweden, UK, Norway etc. etc. as well to a very formal declaration of the 'natural rights' of people.
So finally - the US's assertion of 'natural rights' is a) not an odd, special or contentious thing b) common enough in the world, constitutionally and legally that we can't really say that this nature of their Constitution is very unique.
You're the one who directed me to that comment, so don't throw your hands up and act like you considered it irrelevant to our conversation.
We actually disagree less than you think though.
I'm not making a value judgement about whether constitutions which treat themselves as a statement of natural rights are a bad thing. I actually think it is probably a good thing.
That doesn't make it normative though. It's very uncommon, whether we wish it were more common or not.
As to the evidences you put forward, thank you for putting in the effort. I would say though that you view these things through the lenses of assuming natural rights are really intuitive and a universal value. Anything that these constitutions you listed out say which smells even remotely like a way of saying natural rights you assume that's what it essentially means. But only someone who assume natural rights are a basic human value would consider most of those to be even approaching the idea.
I'll give some examples:
Your Canadian example: Could also be interpreted to mean that the constitution does not supersede divine law, that is, where the rights enumerated conflict with church doctrine, church doctrine is supreme.
I'm not even saying this is my interpretation, I'm just saying it's a plausible interpretation once one stops assuming that natural law in the sense in which it applies to the US constitution is a universal value.
Your Germanic example: It just makes reference adopting the law of the constitutions. This is probably the biggest stretch of them all. There's absolutely no acknowledgement of even the concept of a right or a natural law, in the passage you cited.
One doesn't even need to get rid of the assumption that a concept of natural law is universally shared to fail to see it in that passage.
The UN declaration of Human Rights: Not a constitution, but the closest to a declaration of natural law. However "universally recognised principles" does not equal "natural law". Not even really that close tbh. However it does make mention of "inalienable rights" which is actually the stronger phrase for this being a recognition of natural law.
However again. Not a constitution.
Polish example: Makes reference to a common good and universal values. Not inalienable natural rights, especially once one considers that it balances rights with responsibilities. Natural rights aren't really balanced by responsibility, they just are. But it's not a huge stretch.
Greece: Sometimes it seems like you think any reference to God is a recognition of natural law and rights. It isn't. Hell, even references to rights aren't a recognition of natural law, certainly not in the American sense. The Divine Right of Kings had plenty to do with religion and the concept of rights, but little in common with the natural law, inalienable, universal human rights we're talking about here.
As to your Australia example and its callback to the UN example: Never make the mistake of thinking that rights always refer to natural law and universal, inalienable values. The concept of rights goes back far further, and encompassed things we would consider absolute violations of our modern conception of rights. One can take a purely legalistic view of "right, privileges and responsibilities" which does not rely on anything but the letter of the law. And again, this is not a constitution. Australia HAS a constitution, and its clear why you didn't use IT as an example.
So finally - the US's assertion of 'natural rights' a) certainly odd in how explicit it is, and I would say qualitatively different from most b) uncommon, if in nothing else, how explicitly stated it is, but again, I would say qualitatively different from much of the world.
Again, I would say your blind spot is in assuming that natural law and natural rights are something intuitive and universal, so that any time you hear something even slightly approaching it in language, you assume that's what's being referred to, but that's just not the case in my opinion. I think your perception is coloured by your assumption from the get-go.
> For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament.
While that is historically accurate (you could even say it's an act of the UK Parliament too) -- it is unlike any other act in Australia. Parliament cannot amend it by themselves, and Parliament's legislative power is derived solely from the Constitution.
Every country with a codified constitution considers their constitution to be the supreme law in their country and has special rules for amending it -- that's simply what a constitution is! Yes, Americans do love to fetishise their constitution but that's a social distinction not a legal one.
If you look at countries without codified constitutions (New Zealand or the UK for instance), then there is a much stronger argument that their entire concept of their law is just a series of acts of Parliament and there is no supreme law. But Australia does have a codified constitution.
> There's an implied freedom of political speech.
Which is incredibly limited in scope.
> The rest can be regulated by law.
Which could be trivially amended by later governments. And newsflash -- we don't have laws for freedom of speech in this country. We're the only developed nation in the world that is in this situation.
It would be almost misleading not to mention that the implied freedom of political communication is very limited and doesn't have even close to the depth and breadth of jurisprudence that 1st Amendment arguments have in the US.
The argument at its most extreme that various unauthorised disclosure criminal provisions could be invalid for IFPC reasons is outlined here:
But it's shaky at best. Who is to say that the nature of Special Intelligence Operations and the restrictions on their existence don't justify having no public interest exceptions to disclosures about them, for example? The paper makes this point accidentally (via a Wotton v Queensland analogy, at 362). I just don't see the current applications as being strong enough, especially where the legitimate object of the legislation is national security.
There isn't. The High Court's decision on political freedom of speech is ridiculously limited in scope and doesn't apply to the vast majority of actions most Aussies would call "free speech". I also want to point out just how much the High Court has been forced to stretch the wording of the constitution in order to grant rights which are "obviously present" in our society:
* The amount of decisions which had a basis on "on just terms" had such a massive effect that almost every piece of legislation drafted in the past 50 years has a special provision saying that it should not be interpreted to violate the "on just terms" section of the constitution.
* The freedom of political speech comes from the High Court's reading of the preamble of the constitution, and the fact that it mentions Australia as being a representative democracy. They then ruled that in order for a representative democracy to exist you must have freedom of political speech. We're very lucky that our High Court is ruling in favour of the public's freedom rather than against it, because some people might see that as reason to question the legitimacy of the High Court (which would end very badly).
