Does Israel need a Constitution

[Mediocrates]

Israel does not have a written Consitution and doesn't seem to be in a hurry to complete one. There is the body of Basic Laws but that's it. And since the apparent gridlock in 1950 there has been little concrete progress. So the question is, does Israel need one and if so what would it look like? Does it need to cover these (somewhat American biased) items:

Courts
Judicial Review
Separation of Power
A stronger executive branch
The ability to create laws and legislation
Is is unicameral or bicameral or something else
Is there a statement of rights
Individual rights
Collective rights
Implied rights
Social/Economic rights
How is a Constitution changed
What are the models for one.


Here are some resources which I admit I haven't covered yet but they look good for a layperson who is not professionally versed in the law.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/sible/Complaw.html
http://www.cmfmena.org/countrys/Constitutions/Israeli_Constitution.htm
http://www.ms.huji.ac.il/~review/english/main/publications/past/283e/283_3e.pdf.
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/const-intro-93.htm
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles3/constisramer.htm
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/electconstref.htm
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/switz.htm
http://www.llrx.com/features/israel.htm
http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_hoka.htm


Have a read this 4th of July week and come up with some opinions, discussions, ideas, conclusions.

I'd also recommend for anyone interested in the development of the theory and practice of the Supreme Court of the US, go out and read "John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court" by R. Kent Newmyer

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807127019/qid=1025537876/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-3217431-0851914

[cerulean]

Incomplete response here, but this is a really important subject worthy of a lot more discussion.

Israel for the most part has a common-law legal system like the United States, Great Britain, and most former British colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). (Obviously some areas like marriage are under rabbinical law.)

Three Examples: Britain, United States, Canada

Britain
The advantage of not having a constitution, which Britain does not, is that there is great flexibility on the part of the judges and the Parliament. A judge makes his ruling on his best interpretation of case law precedents and applicable statutes. If the Parliament finds this interpretation unacceptable, the applicable law can be amended quickly without any constitutional difficulty whatsoever. Historically, the British Parliament has made incremental changes that are huge when viewed over a course of hundreds of years, but it tends to move cautiously in respect to any particular subject. The judiciary has also tended to be fairly cautious (Lord Denning being among the more daring of modern British judges).

The United States
The United States, after the Marbury v. Madison case in 1804, has the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of whether a law or practice is constitutional or not. If the Supreme Court rules as to the constitutionality of a subject, that ruling will hold and no legislation can directly attack this constitutionality or lack of it. It is possible to pass a constitutional amendment, a very cumbersome practice that requires approval by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures (by majority vote).
Alternatively, you can wait for some years to pass and then bring the issue to the Supreme Court once again. (This was done in respect to the Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896 which found that segregation was constitutional. In 1954, the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education , found that segregation was unconstitutional.)
For political points, it's common for a politician to suggest a constitutional amendment such as one to ban burning the flag, or to ban same-sex unions, or whatever his pet cause is. There's virtually no chance of such amendments being passed.
The disadvantage of the US system is that it relies so heavily on the nine people on the Supreme Court. It's worth mentioning also that many constitutional issues are decided by lower courts and are never heard in the top court at all.

Canada
Canada got a constitution in 1982, called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The innovation in this constitution was a "notwithstanding" clause, which serves as an override for particular sections of the charter. If the federal government, or a provincial government, deems a court opinion to be incorrect, it can opt to nullify it with legislation for a five-year period. Quebec did this in respect to its French-language laws that restricted the use of English in businesses. In practice, few governments would consider using the "notwithstanding" clause, but it mgiht serve to hold back the court somewhat.

What Does This Imply for Israel?
Israel obviously has a much different culture than Britain, the United States, or Canada. I don't know if a constitution would result in excessive litigation with relatively little benefit for the money and time expended, but that's always a risk. I suspect the process of getting consensus for a constitution would be very stressful, given the strong differences in opinion from left-wing to right-wing and secular to religious.

I'd suggest looking at some practical problems in Israel and how these might be treated differently if a constitution was in place. This is an area where it's easy to go off into abstractions.

[Mediocrates]

Thank you for that start. I invite anyone to focus on this page

http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/sible/Complaw.html

since it has many of the European constitutions, the American, the Israeli Basic Laws as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan.

[NewsGuy]

I'm not sure why a constitutional system is superior to any other nuance of democracy.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
I'm not sure why a constitutional system is superior to any other nuance of democracy.

If a country sets down its constitution, then it has a document that its citizens look to with pride. The country's founding principles are there for all time (or at least until a supramajority repeals them). Counterargument: Israel already has long had a huge body of historical/religious/philosophical writings that play a significant role in defining what it is, more so than any other country probably.

If a government engages in a particular practice or passes a law that is unjust, particularly to minorities, it can be overturned by a court that is zealous in protecting the rights of all citizens. Possible disadvantage: having a court that is out of touch with reality.

[sharonbn]

IMO, Israel is in dire need of a Constitution.
mostly so separation of state and religion can finally occur.
This is the main reason we do not have a constitution yet - the religious political parties are vetoing any attempt to establish such a paper, since they fear it will devoid them of the great powers they posses in marital laws, burial arrangements and other issues.

[cerulean]

sharonbn, aren't the reasons you list exactly why getting consensus on a constitution will be almost impossible? In what way do you think consensus could be reached?

[sharonbn]

I didn't say constitution is feasible.
I said it is badly needed.

[Mediocrates]

Why isn't it feasible? Certainly both the conditions and the reasons for not doing are conceptually more or less the same as any other post colonial country formed since the end of WW2. And it's equally true that lots of countries who created one wound up as horribly run tyrannies that descended into war and cannibalism.

I don't see the religious aspect being materially different from the Irish constitiution where the Catholic church wielded power on a par with arab sharia at least in the realm of family law, divorce, abortion and so on.

I'll be studying this and hopefully come up with something.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by sharonbn
IMO, Israel is in dire need of a Constitution.
mostly so separation of state and religion can finally occur.

That can be easily accomplished by the existing legal system and legislation. It does not require a constitution -- all it takes is the will of the democratic voter.

It seems that you think that a constitution will serve to take away certain decisions from the citizens, but you should know that a constitution does not work that way.

[sharonbn]

Religious issues and problems in Israel are anything but "easily accomplished".

For instance, in Israel, there is absolutely no way to get married without rabbinical signature. You can get married abroad and be registered as married in the ministry of interior affairs. However, you have to prove your marriage by a long beaurocratic procedure.
Also, you cannot get divorced without going through the municipal Chief Rabbinate. even if you got married abroad. Your divorce will not be recognized and registered any other way.
Another example: the Chief Rabbinate maintains a blacklist of people that are not eligible for marriage (for example, a bastard son). They have no criteria for this list and do not disclose it and you only get to know you’re blacklisted when you come to receive your marriage certificate.
The legal system cannot overturn these things because they are explicitly stated in the law, and the courts are restricted to applying the written law. One of the principal function of a constituion is that it gives the court the power to rule in contrast to a written law, if the supreme court finds the law "unconstitutional".

The religious parties are also concerned regarding the exempt their people get fron army service. The Israeli supreme court already ruled that there is no law that supports this exempt of orthodox religious men and the government should instruct the army to enlist these men. (currently there is only an "immidiate regulation" [tzav hasha'a] that a minister can pass without the approval of the knesset.)
The government is contemplating passing such a law, but such a law will be dimmed unconstitutional if it discriminates based on religion.

Easy huh?

[Mediocrates]

That's part of what goes to the heart of it. One kind is a declarative constitution and the other is not. A declarative form has general principals like equality under the law, sanctity of property, the form of government is.... and so on. Non declarative actually looks like a code and elucidates specific laws within the context of stated or implied rights. I think there is room for both kinds. The wider issue for me though is whether the structure of government itself needs to change and put down in a constitution.

What are the powers and limits of the judiciary? Can the judiciary decide on the constitutionality of laws. Does Israel need an executive branch? Parliamentary governments can work like they do in England or they can be unstable like Italy or Israel. If religious force has some input into 'the law of the land', then how much, is it constitutionally embedded or only codified in the civil code so that it can be reversed or changed easily? Do they need term limits? Who decides the budget and is there a veto and how broad is it? Who can enter into treaties and how do they get ratified? And so on.

[Micah]

Question: If Israel is going to be a Jewish state, shouldn't it have Jewish laws?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Micah
Question: If Israel is going to be a Jewish state, shouldn't it have Jewish laws?

depends on your definition of "Jewish laws"
As you well know, Judaism is a unique concept in the world in the sense that it defines a religion and also an ethnic belonging.

Israel already has both religious Jewish laws (like the law that forbids work on Sabbath and religious holidays, the law that forbids displaying hametz in Passover, the law that regulates the selling of pork etc.) and ethnic Jewish laws (like the law of return).
I, as a secular Jew (in fact, I'm an atheist) oppose the religious laws. I feel that enforcing issues of belief and faith in a written law is unjust. I do support the law of return and believe it is essential to keep Israel a Jewish state (the way I see it - home of the Jewish people.)
One fundamental human right is freedom of faith and religion. It means that a person should not be discriminated (even favorably discriminated) based upon his/her religion. The constitution should, of course, protect this basic right.
That's why I think both kind of laws are in danger of becoming unconstitutional once such a paper is established.

Lets take an exmple: the law that forbids work on Sabbath.
This law has, as well as the religious aspect, a social aspect as well. The law protects the exploitation of workforce by forcing a person to work 7 days a week. But why Sabbath? Why forbid work on Jewish religious holidays? The Muslim or budhist worker should not be forbidden to work on Sabbath as long as he/she gets two days off on every week. (btw, there are budhist workers in Israel.) It is left for the good will of the employer if the budhist religious holiday is considered a day off or is deducted from the worker's vacation allowence.

Maybe the constitution of Israel should somehow mention the special function of the state of Israel in maintaining the existence of the Jewish nation. But care should be taken so this declaration cannot be interpreted as discriminative against non-Jewish Israeli citizens.

[Mediocrates]

Think of it as an inversion of our 1st ammendment. So that the Constitution should guarantee that Israelis can practice, express their Jewish identify however they desire within broad parameters to the extent that other/most other Jews are not offended or harmed in some way. But the main construct is that Israelis get to express their Jewish identity unmolested within that context. Non Jews will have to respect that and follow whatever constructs, rights and laws that support that. The challenge is to avoid codifiying specific practice in such a way that that people are hampered or harmed. For example family law in Israel is deeply religious. But why is this? It is because the laws are meant to promote Jewish identity to the extent that there is an identifiable population of Jews. If family laws were made completely secular would it still be possible to maintain a Jewish state where the population of identifiable Jews erodes over time? What we don't want to do is proclaim the UN-Palistinian solution which was "anyone who wants to claim that they lived in Israel from 1946-48 can claim Palistinianhood".

So I think you will always have some religious/cultural context for family law. You have to. We do here in the states - for example we forbid polygamy and child marriages no matter how much a part of someone else's religion or culture that may be. We have, at least the state level, Blue Laws that bar the operation of some businesses on the Christian Sabbath. We have local bans on the sale of alcohol and the establishment of 'adult' businesses and the operation of gambling and lotteries specifically on religious/cultural grounds. That the muslim sabbath in on Friday not Saturday or Sunday or that Hindu holidays aren't legal holidays is simply not part of the equation. That's what personal holidays in your business are for (just an example so don't criticize).

At any rate I'll be studying the Irish Constitution to see how or if they resolve the religious law aspect since the Catholic Church was until recently at least as powerful as the government in Ireland.

[Micah]

I guess the difference between me and you is that I think Israel, if it wants to be called a Jewish State, should be a theocrisy. If it isn't, then how can it be called a Jewish state? I think this is where the definition of "Jewish" comes into play.

From my understanding, being Jewish is a covenantal relationship between you and God. People can argue that being Jewish is not being in a race. Like antisemetism isn't racism. Since you can convert to Judaism, I would think you wouldn't be converting into a race, since I, as a white person, can't convert to a black person (well, maybe with some surgery :p).

But, I also (think I) understand that if you aren't Jewish, you don't have to abide by (most) Halakah. An exception would be idol worship. Things like not being allowed to work on the Sabbath SHOULDN'T by any means apply to all citizens of Israel, because a nonJew isn't allowed to keep the Sabbath.

Arg, so deep...

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Easy huh?

Yes, it's easy if you have the votes -- just like the religious parties have them. It's difficult, though, to impose your views on the Knesset if not.

I think that the issues you mentioned are a result of the electoral system, not for lack of a constitution. Again, you seem to think that a constitution is a way of imposing political outcomes. It's really not.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
I think that the issues you mentioned are a result of the electoral system, not for lack of a constitution. Again, you seem to think that a constitution is a way of imposing political outcomes. It's really not.

I don't understand where did you see in my words that I think a constitution is a way of imposing political outcomes. I think quite the contrary. The religious laws I listed before impose restrictions on people. That is not the way it should be.
The reason Israel does not have a constitution to date is the religious parties.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Micah
From my understanding, being Jewish is a covenantal relationship between you and God. People can argue that being Jewish is not being in a race. Like antisemetism isn't racism. Since you can convert to Judaism, I would think you wouldn't be converting into a race, since I, as a white person, can't convert to a black person (well, maybe with some surgery :p).

Think of it this way, You're an American. If you emigrate to France, marry a French girl and have French sons and grandsons. Your grandson is now French and not American. This is your "conversion" into the French people.

What defines the ethnicity of a person? it maybe physical characteristics (like skin color). But then again, the French are a distinct nation with its own characteristics. The British are a distinct nation, the Germans and so on. They are all white, mostly Christian...
ethnicity is traditionally defined by things like language, mutual history, communal folklore and culture, similar mentality, etc.
I believe there is another strong factor that determines the ethnic belonging of an individual or group of people - how the others view them. One of the bonding things in Judaism history was the isolation and rejection of the other nations. This greatly helped "preserve" the Jewish nation simply because the Jews did not assimilate into their surrounding.
This is true to this date - I believe recent events in Europe show us that the other nations still view the Jews as different and not belonging – no mater how hard the European Jews identify with the nations they live in. Time and time again, this rejection forces the Jews to seek their faith with other Jews.
Now, it is true that if a Christian converts to the Jewish religion, he/she is accepted into the Jewish race. Moreover, a born Jew who converts to Christianity is no longer a member of the Jewish people. However, I, who do not practice any religious customs none-whatsoever, consider myself a proud Zionist Israeli Jew, with family history in the holocaust and binds to the Jewish-Israeli identity, like serving in the army and breathing Israeli culture (that is 100% Jewish).

The two aspects of Judaism are intertwined and cannot be separated because of the history of the Jewish people and Jewish faith.

[elke]

The two aspects of Judaism are intertwined and cannot be seperated becuase of the history of the Jewish people and Jewish faith.

Very nicely put!

[Vic]

My two cents are that a constitution is always a good idea, especially for a country with many contradictive trends among its population.

The conflicts surrounding the separation of state and religion are very familiar to me, they tend to unleash a lot of aggression and dramatic statements (in my part of the world mostly about the approaching ultimate breakdown of the "christian-occidental culture", whatever it means), yet they are never irresolvable, a minimum of good will provided. The healthiest approach is the relaxed one, on the line of the wise saying "Shabbat is for you and not you for Shabbat". Taking this somewhat further: Judaism is there for Jews and not Jews for the preservation of Judaism (same goes, to cite some recent conflicts, for Germans or Irishmen and Christianity, Turks or Bosnians and traditional brands of Islam etc.). A good and just secular law must provide optimal conditions for religious practice - for these who adhere to it of free will and to them only. It shouldn't force anyone to take part in them, either directly or by proxy.

Of course there is always a kind of majority consensus on many issues, such as religious holidays. This is why there is nothing wrong about countries with traditional Christian majorities to make Christmas an official holiday - or about defining working and free days according to Jewish religious law. It hardly interferes with anyone's basic rights.

Problems arise when such laws are being forced on those who do not want to follow them, when they seriously interfere with their lives, such as the complicated marriage laws. A minimal modern democratic standard is to permit every citizen to build his/her family the way he/she sees fit. The state should have no say in such matters. If people want to marry according to religious laws, it's their business, the state shouldn't intefere with this either. The only thing the law has to do is not to inhibit religious practice, to protect it if needed (such as enabling employees to observe religious holidays regardless of whether or not this suits their employers).

No religion can profit from unchallenged legislative imposition on the long run, and this goes for Judaism as much as for any other religion (one could safely claim that Christianity created societies of doubtful morality, while Islam is well on the way to function as a vehicle for an uncompromisingly totalitarian, faschistoid ideology). Religion is about spirituality, not about law enforcement. Religious practice that is not based on free will, on inner conviction is worth nothing, neither for the person who practices it nor for his/her community. It shouldn't be upheld just for the sake of statistics, it erodes and loses its true appeal. Differences in opinions on religious matters are much better solved through qualified, knowledgeable debate than by police officers. All such pressures can result in is in the best and most dynamic part of a society, the one that values free choice, turning itself away from its surroundings (leaving the country in the worst case) - thus delegating religious issues to morons, among other things.

And why in the world should a secular Jew possess less of a Jewish identity than a religious one? Who is it that lays down the obligatory norms of Jewishness? I know people who are doubtlessly considered immaculate Jews, convinced that the most important thing about a Jew is to speak Yiddish and produce a lot of children - anyone who doesn't should better not call himself Jewish, period. Which wouldn't be much of a problem were it not that they are sometimes the ones who determine who can become a Jewish community member (and thus an "official" Jew). Nor should anyone worry about mixed marriages eroding "identifiable Jewishness". They tend to strengthen it in practice, since Jewish identities override any other effortlessly. Otherwise how can anyone explain that Jews are still there? (And please don't tell me the popular nonsense about secular Jews in non-Jewish surroundings having their Jewishness preserved through antisemitism only :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) . For practical purposes the definitions of Jewishness based on ethnicity and based on religion are non-exclusive, there should be space enough for both in a truly open and just society (I sometimes do hate overzealous new convertites :( , but this is off-topic).

So, yes, the sooner Israel gets a constitution the better for everyone. And hope that religious laws in state legislation will become history everywhere else too, some day (dream on...)

[Micah]

Originally posted by sharonbn
This is true to this date - I believe recent events in Europe show us that the other nations still view the Jews as different and not belonging – no mater how hard the European Jews identify with the nations they live in. Time and time again, this rejection forces the Jews to seek their faith with other Jews.

Yes, good point. But then again, the same reason that you say makes Jews different from other people will be gone as soon as you make Israel, a state which you want to be Jewish, into a country like any other Democratic-republic. What will be the difference between America and israel is you take away all the things that make the Jews and the Jewish nation unique? That is to say, having a Jewish state that doesn't follow Jewish laws is an oximoron. What's the point of having Israel where it is if it is going to just be a state like any other with the exception that it has Jewish holidays as the national holidays?

In one breath, you tell me of all the things that make the Jews unique, and in another breath you tell me we should get rid of them and replace them with assimilation into the world spectrum.


Now, it is true that if a Christian converts to the Jewish religion, he/she is accepted into the Jewish race. Moreover, a born Jew who converts to Christianity is no longer a member of the Jewish people. However, I, who do not practice any religious customs none-whatsoever, consider myself a proud Zionist Israeli Jew, with family history in the holocaust and binds to the Jewish-Israeli identity, like serving in the army and breathing Israeli culture (that is 100% Jewish).

The two aspects of Judaism are intertwined and cannot be separated because of the history of the Jewish people and Jewish faith.

Ah, the History of the Jewish people...

Ok, let's start right from the beginning. When were the Jews Jews? At Sinai when they excepted the Torah. They have physical features not much if at all different from their origins. Abraham wasn't part of a different race that made him Jewish, Avraham was Jewish because he excepted the Laws. That was the ONLY thing that seperated him from the people around him: the observance of the Mitzvot. Why was Israel promised to him? Because of his exceptance and observance of the Mitzvot. So now, the Jews have Israel, and wanna call it a Jewish nation, but want to have laws like any other democratic-republic such as freedom of religion, don't want to be forced to observe the Sabbath ect. You see why there is a problem here?

[Mediocrates]

Or you could look at it this way. In 1642 Roger Williams rejected the Puritain Theocracy of the Plymouth Colony because there was in fact LESS religious freedom in America than there was in the England (and Holland) they had just left. So Mr. Williams founded his own colony precisely on the precepts of religious tolerance. One could argue that he meant only other Prostestants but we can't really know that given there were zero other non Protestants living in the Plymouth Colony. The effect of that was to open the colonies up to at least the concept of tolerance within the constraints of being a community. Mostly from England and mostly English subjects. It didn't make them any less than what they were, broadly speaking but what it did do was establish a framework upon which people could not be persecuted for this belief or that. It delegitimized crimes of thought and concience which is what the Puritains tried to establish and maintain.

I can see this as the backdrop for a modern Israeli Constitution. As long as the commonwealth is upheld there could be a great deal of latitude. Now how you define and draw parameters around that commonwealth is the hard part.

[Vic]

Originally posted by sharonbn
ethnicity is traditionally defined by things like language, mutual history, communal folklore and culture, similar mentality, etc.
I believe there is another strong factor that determines the ethnic belonging of an individual or group of people - how the others view them. One of the bonding things in Judaism history was the isolation and rejection of the other nations. This greatly helped "preserve" the Jewish nation simply because the Jews did not assimilate into their surrounding.
This is true to this date - I believe recent events in Europe show us that the other nations still view the Jews as different and not belonging – no mater how hard the European Jews identify with the nations they live in. Time and time again, this rejection forces the Jews to seek their faith with other Jews. I cannot agree with this. Of course there is often considerable social pressure, depending on where the Jew in question lives, the social and professional surroundings etc. and sometimes pure luck, but I do not accept that Jewish identity is defined mainly over the negative, over external influence. I have myself survived two entirely different non-Jewish surroundings so far, and all I can say is that, sure enough, hostility can elucidate some of the aspects of one's specific Jewishness, yet it hardly shapes it, unless you mean the pathological "the world is against poor little us" stance. On the contrary, from a certain critical mass upwards Jews often dispaly a surprising capabilty of defining their surroundings. What forces Jews "to seek their faith with other Jews" (I suppose you do not mean religious revival by it) is less hostility as such but rather a sense of common mentality, communication style etc., a kind of boredom in non-Jewish surroundings.

As for Europe: it is shaped by the concept of nation-states, i.e. states more or less completely subjugated to the presumed interests of their ethnic majorities, something both Americans and Israelis, it seems, find hard to understand. At odds with most of the written declarations, including such insignificant documents as national constitutions, and general democratic concepts, this has been the main fault line in European politics for years and always a reliable source of considerable conflict. This "majority-oriented" line of political thought, officially adopted by the "right", inofficially by some parts of the "left" (who are more similar to each other than they both care to admit), profiting from unstable times like these, rejects any kind of minorities, picking out occassionally one or the other for the role of "court Jews". I do wish there would be more clarity on this, it would greatly help to define the correct line of approach and to avoid disgusting blunders like this: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=1073

[Mediocrates]

I live in the US state which has the LOWEST ratio of Jews to non Jews in the US. Compared to the total pop ~6 million we are but a few thousand - maybe 40K in the whole state. There is nothing ethnic about us. We are all pretty much the same and about half of us lived here for several generations.

[elke]

I haven't had a chance to see all the materials listed, but here is preliminary:

Constitution is, IMO, a very good idea. It's not that having one will determine whether a country is democratic or not, but it's a way to codify the general basic principles on which the country wants to be based. It serves the purpose of a ruler, a standard of measure to which everything else can be compared.

I don't think that details such as whether or not a politician can make certain alliances should be included in such a basic document. It seems that it should be short and sweet, and very broad : a general framework, filled in by statutory, case, and possibly Talmudic law. Only the items of particular, immutable in the conceivable future, importance need to be included in the Constitution.

Given that Israel is occupied by people of many different ethnic and religious backgrounds, such a document must accommodate the needs of the "others", while at the same time allow for the preservation of the Jewish nature of Israel. Just as in the US Christmas and Easter are national holidays, there is no reason for Yom Kippur to not be one for Israel. Non-Jews choosing to live in a Jewish state will simply have to deal with it, just like we deal with Christmas and Easter.

[elke]

Constitution-Drafting Panel Established:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1035348763752

Committee chairman Michael Eitan (Likud) called the step "historic," because the religious, secular, Right, and Left will "work together to advance the establishment of a constitution." He added that the subcommittee marks the first time there is "agreement in principle" that a constitution must be advanced.

[sharonbn]

At the present, the strongest opposition to the establisment of constitution comes from the ultra orthodox. They fear that "freedom of religion" section will dperive them of their current monopoly of religion administration in Israel and will legalisze conservative and reform conversions.

See if you can convince them.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by sharonbn
At the present, the strongest opposition to the establisment of constitution comes from the ultra orthodox. They fear that "freedom of religion" section will dperive them of their current monopoly of religion administration in Israel and will legalisze conservative and reform conversions.

See if you can convince them. What are their power capacities (financial, % of the electorate, connections...)? Is there any chance that they'll be simply overrun one day, through demographics, for one (for example, it seems that the majority of the "Russian Aliyah" are no fans of this sector)?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Miriam
What are their power capacities (financial, % of the electorate, connections...)? Is there any chance that they'll be simply overrun one day, through demographics, for one (for example, it seems that the majority of the "Russian Aliyah" are no fans of this sector)?

They have 22 seats in the Knesset from 2 political parties.
They exploit the omnipresent tie between the right and left wing to be a vital part of any government and then achieve gains by always threatening to leave.
Regarding demographics.... they have one of the highest growth rate. Since they do not use contraceptives and have no notion of family planning, a typical ultra orthodox family have anywhere ebtween 5-15 children.

[jcsd]

Originally posted by cerulean


Britain
The advantage of not having a constitution, which Britain does not, is that there is great flexibility on the part of the judges and the Parliament. A judge makes his ruling on his best interpretation of case law precedents and applicable statutes. If the Parliament finds this interpretation unacceptable, the applicable law can be amended quickly without any constitutional difficulty whatsoever. Historically, the British Parliament has made incremental changes that are huge when viewed over a course of hundreds of years, but it tends to move cautiously in respect to any particular subject. The judiciary has also tended to be fairly cautious (Lord Denning being among the more daring of modern British judges).

Actually, Britain now does have a constition, when earlier this year the European bill of human rights, effectively became it's constition by taking precendence over the common law system.

Constitutions are not needed for fair government as they often become out-dated and need to be ammended anyway. Also they do not guarentee anything as a corrupt government could ammend one out of existance or ignore it.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by sharonbn

They have 22 seats in the Knesset from 2 political parties.
They exploit the omnipresent tie between the right and left wing to be a vital part of any government and then achieve gains by always threatening to leave.
Regarding demographics.... they have one of the highest growth rate. Since they do not use contraceptives and have no notion of family planning, a typical ultra orthodox family have anywhere ebtween 5-15 children. Any they don't regard voting as a prohibited secular act, do they? :rolleyes: Can one actually bring up a case of national treason against their leaders? Or at least one of organized child abuse? Just wondering...

I guess it means that the others should hurry up or else... I remember reading a suggestion by Yoram Kaniuk to split Israel in two states: a secular (in the coastal area) and a religious one (around Jerusalem) - it seemed that he was only half joking.


Btw., what does this say about the constitution - from the same JP article:Religious MKs have agreed to cooperate with a Knesset panel for advancing the formation of a constitution, but MKs on the Left have reservations about the establishment of the forum.

[...]

Cohen, who has been heading a Knesset caucus for a constitution for three years, said the establishment of the subcommittee was made possible following the departure of Ophir Pines-Paz from chairmanship of the Law Committee.

Cohen said he would try to bring a draft of a constitution before the elections. But he said that if he does not succeed, it will be "easier after the elections when the Likud grows to 30 MKs."

The two opponents of the establishment of the committee were Yael Dayan (Labor) and Anat Maor (Meretz). Labor's Pines-Paz and Dalia Rabin-Pelosoff abstained in the vote to appoint Cohen.

[...]

Dayan said she opposes the committee, especially because Cohen is heading it. "Cohen is not apolitical. He wants a constitution of a certain type," she said.

She emphasized that Cohen has led the drive for the establishment of a constitutional court which would oversee the Supreme Court and would not be apolitical.

According to Dayan, haredim are cooperating with the committee in the hope that it will sanction "terrible things" like the court.I mean, it is entirely possible to write smth. called "constitution" that would suit even the most extreme of the Haredim's tastes

[Batman]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Israel does not have a written Consitution and doesn't seem to be in a hurry to complete one. There is the body of Basic Laws but that's it.

the issue has been raised by an expert on contitutional democracy, Professor Paul Eidelberg who has written a lot on the subject. You may want to check his views out.
He says(excerpt):"The lack of a clear and concise and coherent body of fundamental laws -- say a basic document with which to educate youth and thereby promote civic virtue and national unity. These flaws point to only one remedy: a Constitution. Furthermore, anyone who thinks Israel can be or become a Jewish State without a Jewish Constitution, meaning a Constitution that institutionalizes the primacy of Judaism, is suffering from ignorance or intimidated by the bogeyman of "racism." And if he is a philanthropist supporting Israeli "causes," he is probably squandering, or not putting to best use, a great deal of his money. "A JEWISH NATIONAL STRATEGY (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug97/eidelber.htm)

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by jcsd
Actually, Britain now does have a constition, when earlier this year the European bill of human rights, effectively became it's constition by taking precendence over the common law system.

Constitutions are not needed for fair government as they often become out-dated and need to be ammended anyway. Also they do not guarentee anything as a corrupt government could ammend one out of existance or ignore it.


So they have a Bill of Rights, not a Constitution. That's not a bad thing but it is incomplete. A constitution circumscribes the structure, process and limits of government and grants rights as well to the governing, not only the governed.

[jcsd]

The European bill of rights is more of a constitution as it does indeed limit what the goverment can and can't do. Any law that is considered incompatible with this is declared void and the goverment cannot circumvent as it id the european courts that usually deal with governmental violations. However being very new, it is not as strong as the American constitution and requires the goodwill of the government.

[Micah]

Originally posted by Batman
the issue has been raised by an expert on contitutional democracy, Professor Paul Eidelberg who has written a lot on the subject. You may want to check his views out.
He says(excerpt):"The lack of a clear and concise and coherent body of fundamental laws -- say a basic document with which to educate youth and thereby promote civic virtue and national unity. These flaws point to only one remedy: a Constitution. Furthermore, anyone who thinks Israel can be or become a Jewish State without a Jewish Constitution, meaning a Constitution that institutionalizes the primacy of Judaism, is suffering from ignorance or intimidated by the bogeyman of "racism." And if he is a philanthropist supporting Israeli "causes," he is probably squandering, or not putting to best use, a great deal of his money. "A JEWISH NATIONAL STRATEGY (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug97/eidelber.htm)

I like that guy.