Yet swatting, making police kick in the doors and shoot the dogs of someone who was victim of anonymous slander, isn't really a thing here in europe compared to the US.
The very politicized US courts that collude with and are completely in the pocket of whomever's running the country? More developed countries have a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive powers.
Trying to imagine how, and the only thing I can think of is that technically you can write a contract on anything? And possibly a cheque, too, because a the cheques in a chequebook are just a standardised IOU form with exactly the same legal weight as if it was done by hand?
(Vague memory that someone used this to avoid paying a bill, because refusing a cheque when offered counted as discharging the debt it represents (if I have the right terminology), and as cheques could be written on anything they chose to write it on a car that physically would not fit through the door).
In this thread's context, the "constitution" is the kind of thing which is supposed to make that not happen.
Famously bereft of a written constitution, the closest single document along these lines which the UK had for a long time was ("the") Magna Carta, which basically exists because King John's lords were tired of King John directing the courts that King John personally owned to not hear cases against himself.
But if your point is that some constitutions may as well be toilet paper for how much the people with power care about their contents, then I agree.
Famously, the toilet paper known as the US Constitution has prevented any violations of rights recently, like the brown skinned people getting brought to concentration camps, or your dog getting shot because you used free speech.
Even if you take the European Union alone and ignore all the other European countries, the EU only legislates over a subset of things for member countries.
AFAIK, not even that. This topic came up in relation to Hungary (before Orban was gone). What I understood from the discussion is that a country can only be punished by not giving them EU funds, etc.
Kicking out is possible, but not established and everyone happy that Orban is gone for now and no immediate need to find out how that process works in reality.
Yes. The EU has no army, no legal sovereignty within each country, etc. It's an alliance of countries NOT a single federal government. The individual countries remain in charge of themselves and the alliance is supposed to be structured in a way that only paases things the countries actually want.
trumpdong then makes a comment that I interpret as saying the EU doesn't have a lot of power over member states, and saying that the worst which could happen to one of them is to be kicked out of the EU.
Slightly shocked by the idea that the EU should be doing something worse than expelling a member for not following the Union's rules, I use a _reductio ad absurdum_ and ask if they thought the EU should be harder and actually perform an armed invasion of a member state that didn't follow them.
They complained kicking out the worst. I suggested one possible worse possibility (again, in a reductio ad absurdum rhetoric), trying to understand what they thought should be done more than "just kicking them out". They agreed with it.
