By now you have probably heard that a certain US Supreme Court Justice, in Cairo, has stated that the US Constitution is probably not the best model for countries developing their own constitutions currently.
There are two sides to this story, and her statement may have some credibility, but I don't think that is what she was talking about. Very interestingly, the statement has provoked much discussion.
Part of the discussion is this article in the NY Times.
As an economist, one thing stands out about the US constitution above pretty much all other constitutions. Our document does not "give" rights, merely states preexisting rights, and none of the rights stated require anything from anyone else. Nothing in the US Constitution, dealing with the rights of the people, requires action on the part of the government or anyone else to provide that right. This is far different from the majority of national constitutions, which, as the NYT article points out, typically assure their citizens of the "rights" to food, shelter, education, etc....
As an economist, one problem. Rights to food, shelter, and education require taking from someone else to provide these things. Who do you take from? Is that freedom?
No comments:
Post a Comment