From: ylq@lems22lems.brown.edu (Yan Shen)
Subject: Re: response to Mr. W. Dong and Mr. T. Bao's comments
Organization: Laboratory for Engineering Man/Machine Systems
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:41:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.181738.25630@athena.mit.edu>, zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep4.160220.16352@cs.brown.edu>, ylq@lems23lems.brown.edu (Yan Shen) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Sep4.014949.28719@athena.mit.edu>, zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu) writes:
|> |> |> |> 
|> |> |> |> |> What's the hell reasons should we keep the same Constitution for more than 200 years?
|> |> |> |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> |> |> |> or even more?  You want the Constitutions of Qing dynasty or Mingguo? They are
|> |> |> |> |> really old though. :) :)
|> |> |> |> |> 
|> |> |> |> 
|> |> |> |> It prevents any politican from thinking that he is above the constitution and the 
|> |> |> |> law. Is this the fundamental difference ?
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> Really? Why?  
|> |> Deng XiaoPing can change the Constitution of China overnight if he wants. G. Bush 
|> |> cann't. 
|> 
|> You failed to answer my question:  why an 200 yrs. old constitution "prevent any 
|> politician from thinking taht he is above the constitution and the law"?
|> After all who are talking about how to change the constitutions?
|> 
The Constitution of United States which is more than 200 years old never states 
that any specific political organization or party is uniquely legitimate in 
governing the country. But the Contsitution of PRC expilicitly states that. 
So the Constitution is just a tool used to serve the CC party's governing. 
That is to say, anyone who does not agree the CCP's policies is violating the 
"law" or the Constitution of the PRC. This is why we see political prisoner in 
China. 

My original posting never said the reason why the Constitution of U.S. prevents 
any politician from thinking that he is above the constitution or the law is only 
									     ****
because that is 200 years old, and I never said it is not amendable. What I
wanted to say there is no politician or party can enact any amendment
to the Constitution of U.S. only by him/her/itself. 

|> The fact is: You can have whatever (old) law, but if you donot want to obey it, such as
|> ST, who view himself above China's law as a "son" of Uncle Sam, the law is simply
|> a piece of paper.  Though as a "son" of Uncle Sam may not works this time. :) 
|> 
|> Don't just accuse DXP violate the laws. He did and should be punished accordingly.
|> Those D guys do the same. 

How to punish accordingly? D guys are locked up, where is DXP ? 

|>However, they can always claim the law is NOT theirs and
|> then they are NOT guilty. :)

If any so-called "law" is just the instrument of the governing party, this "law"
can not be justified as the law for every citizen to comply with. The reason is 
this kind of "law" just protect party's interests instead of citizen's basic 
legal rights. 

BTW, Do you think the terminology like "political crime" should be abolished from 
the law of PRC ?  

Mr. Hui Zhu, even though we both can not convince each other, let's truce here. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china