151–160 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That certainly doesn't seem to outlaw people casting votes for independence.
http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/spain-constituti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the sovereignty of the government comes from the social contract. When a big part of the citizens feel that they are not represented by the government, the social contract is broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract The Spaniards seem to love Rajoy, as they give him the majority in every election. Rajoy's party, "Partido Popular", is voted by less than 8% of the Catalans. So, the question is, why the…
Are you kidding? Do you know how a democracy works?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That certainly doesn't seem to outlaw people casting votes for independence.
It means all the Spanish people have a say when talking about sovereignty, not only a part. That's why is illegal a election for secession with only a part of the Spanish census.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://twitter.com/JordiGraupera/status/914406594779205632 https://twitter.com/JordiGraupera/status/914408451870265344 https://twitter.com/LordRennard/status/914434884990652421 Here's one of the international observers verifying too
Are you really serious with those 'sources'?
I myself don’t see any particular reason to question Lord Rennard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dotn know how about some big ones 1. Slavery 2. Trail of Tears / Native American Reservations 3. Japanese internment camps Those are 3 from just American History that everyone should agree on, Then there are others from other Democracies, plus things that happen in War Time in like Vietnam, I could compile I huge list, the idea that democracies are some how pure as the driven snow free from any unethical or immoral…
Slavery is a bit of a stretch. There were many restrictions on who was able to vote when slavery was legal in the US. (Most obviously, slaves couldn't vote, but women and many white men were also unable to.)
You are simply grasping at straws to defend the "golden standard" for Authoritarian Government... democracy. where all unethical actions can be justified as long as the "majority" agrees
As you can tell I am no fan of democracy, and believe people that refuse to acknowledge massive ethical problems with democracy treat it almost like a religion, replacing the traditional Omnipotent God with "will of the majority"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. It seems somewhat akin to "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
But doesn't mean that. In law there isn't something like 'oh it seems this legal precept means...' All legal precepts have carefully chosen words and a spirit in which they're based.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slavery is a bit of a stretch. There were many restrictions on who was able to vote when slavery was legal in the US. (Most obviously, slaves couldn't vote, but women and many white men were also unable to.)
It is not a stretch at all, The fact that "There were many restrictions" has no bearing on the conversation. You are simply grasping at straws to defend the "golden standard" for Authoritarian Government... democracy. where all unethical actions can be justified as long as the "majority" agrees As you can tell I am no fan of democracy, and believe people that refuse to acknowledge massive ethical problems with democr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/spain-constituti...
This doesn’t seem to contain any information relevant to the legality of voting. It merely discusses the validity of the referendum, which is a separate issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn’t seem to contain any information relevant to the legality of voting. It merely discusses the validity of the referendum, which is a separate issue.
Surely the two issues are intimately related. It's because the referendum is illegal that it's illegal to vote in it.
The constitution merely invalidates the referendum, it doesn't actually make it illegal. However, obviously it's criminal to spend public money on organizing an unrecognized referendum.
Given that the referendum itself isn't criminalized, it seems ridiculous to argue that simply by participating one would be violating the law.
It's also important to keep in mind that even the Spanish government has not attempted to argue that it's illegal to vote. This is just a meme being spread on online forums by people who mostly don't even understand the difference between the constitution and the criminal law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely the two issues are intimately related. It's because the referendum is illegal that it's illegal to vote in it.
I don't understand your logic. Could you try to explain this using common legal concepts? The constitution merely invalidates the referendum, it doesn't actually make it illegal . However, obviously it's criminal to spend public money on organizing an unrecognized referendum. Given that the referendum itself isn't criminalized, it seems ridiculous to argue that simply by participating one would be violating the law.…