NationStates Jolt Archive

to strictly interpret a Constitution or similar legal document that is written in East Asian characters?

I ask this question because based on my [limited] knowledge of East Asian languages, I understand characters and such can stand for rather abstract concepts (correct me if I'm wrong).

Bush is the evil incarnate!

And Amercians love him!!!

I ask this question because based on my [limited] knowledge of East Asian languages, I understand characters and such can stand for rather abstract concepts (correct me if I'm wrong).

In what way is this any different from the fact that we use Roman letters to make words which can stand for rather abstract concepts?

i think its no more difficult than nailing down a consitution written in french.

its my understanding (before you think im flaming the french) that french is the language of international diplomacy because of its fluidity. it allows for slightly different interpretations between parties.

they do have contracts in china eh?

In responce to the original poster, I would imagine you cant, since you cant do it in English either and that's why:

1) America has a high court.

2) Constitutions are a bad idea.

In responce to the original poster, I would imagine you cant, since you cant do it in English either and that's why:

1) America has a high court.

2) Constitutions are a bad idea.

Constitutions are a bad idea? Um, what? Okay, so, how do you suggest limiting the power and mapping the scope of the government?

to strictly interpret a Constitution or similar legal document that is written in East Asian characters?

I ask this question because based on my [limited] knowledge of East Asian languages, I understand characters and such can stand for rather abstract concepts (correct me if I'm wrong).The UN charter is written in English, French, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish, all of which are legally binding. It's got to be possible somehow. (I'm aware that the charter is translated into other languages too, but these are not "legally binding")

1) America has a high court.
I hate the Supreme Court. Judicial activism, anybody?

2) Constitutions are a bad idea.
Not if it's written properly. Okay, keeping in terms of strict construction, I anticipate somebody going to ask me to define "proper"

Constitutions are a bad idea? Um, what? Okay, so, how do you suggest limiting the power and mapping the scope of the government?
Um, how about come to Britain and see that we do in fact have a government that's much older and less restrictive than yours whilst also not having a constitution, maybe?

Um, how about come to Britain and see that we do in fact have a government that's much older and less restrictive than yours whilst also not having a constitution, maybe?

England's a bad example. You have common law precedent and tradition. What about new countries that don't have the same precedent and tradition? How do those countries limit the power and map the scope of the government?

I agree that your government's less restrictive. That's not necessarily a good thing. The party that controls the House of Commons can usher in almost any law it wants. The US Constitution intentionally gridlocks Congress. Legislation needs to pass both Houses of Congress and must obtain the approval of the President. Sure, laws are harder to pass that way, but the gridlocked system also ensures that one party or one individual can't take over the government. Restrictions on government keep politicians and power mongers in check.

*Edit: Written constitutions are binding contracts between the people and their government, in essence. The US Constitution is relatively short and an easy read. Almost everyone can read and understand most of the document, which allows average citizens to challenge their government when it oversteps its power. Contracts should be written so citizens and the government know what the government can and can't do, as well as what rights individuals possess.

Why???

Anyway, I'm sure it is possible.

All written characters relate to a specific sound, and the ways of presenting that sound in written form is all that is different. Just translate the Far Eastern characters into their corresponding Latin characters.

Of course, unless you are fluent in the relevant Far Eastern language, you would then have to translate the Far Eastern words in the Latin alphabet into English.

Easy. :p

England's a bad example. You have common law precedent and tradition. What about new countries that don't have the same precedent and tradition? How do those countries limit the power and map the scope of the government?

I agree that your government's less restrictive. That's not necessarily a good thing. The party that controls the House of Commons can usher in almost any law it wants. The US Constitution intentionally gridlocks Congress. Legislation needs to pass both Houses of Congress and must obtain the approval of the President. Sure, laws are harder to pass that way, but the gridlocked system also ensures that one party or one individual can't take over the government. Restrictions on government keep politicians and power mongers in check.

Of course, once the Bill is passed by the House of Commons, it has to be passed in the House of Lords, and then has to be given the Royal Assent - which Queenie has the right to refuse.

There are certain ways of getting around our system though. Should the Lords reject a Bill twice, the Commons can go straight to Queenie for the Royal Assent. Whilst She has the right to refuse it, if She disagrees with it, She can "offer suggestions for improvement."

Well some charecters are defined by abstract concepts and some aren't, much like some English words are defined by abstract concepts and some are not. With some eastern languages the etymology of the charecters more widely know than is common with languages like English and chosing which charecter to use becasue of the connotations is more common in them than in languages like English, but that is more a form of poetry than a requirement of using the language. So I would answer yes, insofar as it is possible using any language.

to strictly interpret a Constitution or similar legal document that is written in East Asian characters?

I ask this question because based on my [limited] knowledge of East Asian languages, I understand characters and such can stand for rather abstract concepts (correct me if I'm wrong).

They stand for roots and such. If English were written with them, "understand" and "biology", for example, would be written with the characters for "under" plus "stand" and "bio-/life" plus "-logy/study". There's actually a webpage explaining how English would be written using these sort of characters:

http://www.zompist.com/yingzi/yingzi.htm