American lawyer and court shows and movies are ever popular with Danish TV stations. This to the effect that most young Danes would probably be more capable of recalling the letter of the American constitution than that of their own country.
So perhaps you too should do as fellow HA.dat student Dyrelund and go watch a couple of hours of public court. It's free, very real, occasionally touching, and surely educational.
"This to the effect that most young Danes would probably be more capable of recalling the letter of the American constitution than that of their own country."
I think there is a more serious background to this. The rights that Americans hold dear have only been achieved after long fights. The history of important legislation legislation in the US is fascinating because there was so much controversy. On the contrary, change in Danish law and society has mostly been piecemeal and uncontroversial.
People fought hard, suffered and sometimes even died to achieve things like the Bill of Rights, the 13th Amendment, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In Denmark similar changes have largely gone unnoticed because they were more or less snuck in by the back door.
Also ligitation plays a much smaller role in shaping our law and social structure. A number of US Supreme Court cases are widely cited outside legal circles because they actually had an effect on the young nation. Some important ones that everyone interested in American society and history should know:
Marbury v. Madison (1803) -- the first time the Supreme Court struck down a federal law; judicial review, which the Danish Supreme Court claims exists here but has been reluctant to exercise
Insular Cases (1901) -- US law does not apply in colonies, still relevant because of Guantananamo
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) -- segregation in schools
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) -- right to an attorney
New York Times v. US (1971) -- freedom of the press in national security issues and prior restraint (publication of the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War)
Roe v. Wade (1973) -- right to abortion
Sony v. Universal (1984) -- legality of VCRs
Danish law has rarely been affected by the courts. I think this is a bad thing because in such a system important change can only come from Parliament, which means that the legitimate rights can be repeatedly trounced if there is no broad political support. Not having fought for rights also means that Danes have no real relationship to civil and political rights and gladly abandom them when someone shouts "terrorism".
Challenge by sturkimov on February 12, 21:22
Guan- you are correct about the Danes getting their rights in a 'less spectacular way' than the Americans. Denmark went from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy rather smoothly, I do not recall anybody getting killed because of that.
But not having to fight and die for the civil / political rights, does not automatically equate to being careless about those sacred rights.
It just seems, that Danes prefer that the parliament discusses the issues - probably because of the rather large political span which is present in the parliament. This has, and does serve as a guarantor to block the most hideous/unlawful proposals.
I would really like to explore what you exactly mean with what you wrote :
"Not having fought for rights also means that Danes have no real relationship to civil and political rights and gladly abandom them when someone shouts 'terrorism'."
Because I can not regonize that at all. What political / civil rights have the Danes given up- and especially - compared to what the Americans have given up.
I don't know how much truth there is to the story you told in your previous posts Guan. However, assuming that there is some truth to it, I still find it rather odd that you seem to be defending the US in comparison to Denmark on abandoning civil rights? And even furthe, then go on to blame Danes for tacitly accepting such violations of the civil rights.
Perhaps you could shed som light on what it is, more specifically, that you are referring to? And furthermore, maybe you could explain how a war on Iraq, which was in violation of all UN regulations, yet supported by more than 50% of the US population is a true signification of the average american's strong relationsship to civil and political rights?
I thought this link might be of intrest. Marc Stevens talks about the relationship between man and the State and how you can't be prosecuted when you havn't signed any contracts with The United States of America.
Anyways I'm no expert on law but made notice of this. This is of special intrest to Americans allthough I wonder if this goes for the Danish law too in some way?
Listen to a 2 hour+ interview with Marc Stevens. Starts 30 min. into the show.
I wasn't clear. The fact is that any number of horrible laws have been and are on the statute books in the United States. George Washington's administration and Congress arbitrarily deported foreigners, imprisoned journalists and punished people who critisized the federal government. During World War 1 the horrible Espionage Act was adopted. During the Cold War there was the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Today we have things like the PATRIOT Act.
Denmark has not had such draconian laws in modern times. This is a really, really good thing :-), but it can also work against you. When the Danish government, as part of its anti-terrorism package, tried to enforce data retention -- a trivial issue, I grant, compared to for the ability to hold people as "material witnesses" indefinitely, for example -- most of the substantive arguments in opposition centered on whether this would be a big hassle for ISPs.
In the debate on whether to admit refugees, critics of a stricter immigration regime invariably refer to "the conventions", i.e. the European Convention on Human Rights. Nobody participating in the debate seem willing to argue that the rights written in the Convention do not exist because somebody arbitrarily wrote them down on a piece of paper 50 years ago; they exist because they should be and are fundamental rights of citizens living in civil societies.
The United States has influential organizations such as the ACLU who are willing and able to litigate important issues. The civil rights movement is backed by the conviction that written documents are banal manifestations of fundamental rights.