That’s a tricky one.That Constitution is rather large. However, although it seems an open door, I am inclined to mention article 1-1 .In fact, there is a bizarre trend that they call ‘ positive discrimination ‘. And despite the undoubtedly good intentions (and crooked reasoning sometimes) This just goes straight against it. Incidentally, this is in conjunction with violating article 1-3.
Furthermore, in the case of the Block Frisians, article 1 – 11 has been violated by the police.DNA was reduced against their will.The separate part is that some articles have a separate member that allows the government to restrict previous members. That is not the case with article 1 – 11 .
Apart from the above, in my opinion, articles 67 and 68 have also been trampled on.In 67, paragraph 3 states that members of the chamber vote without ‘ burden ‘. In the notes you read that they have to be free to vote as they want. Formally, this is still true (think of the famous ‘night of Wiegel‘ for example).However, self-interest, party discipline and political pressure is often such a big thing (hence the statements of Baudet about ‘Party cartel‘) that members of the Chamber are braking with the party instead of following their heart/mind.
As far as article 68 is concerned, piles of politicians believe that a looped can be taken with the Constitution (this is called ‘ misinformed ‘).If this comes out, that sometimes means that he or she can leave . Unfortunately, it is also enough for ministers to get away with it.For example, Menno is quick with the Tesla affair.
So in conclusion, you can actually say that if there is 1 party that systematically violates the Constitution, that is the party that should actually guard it.Our government.
The principle of equality or the prohibition of discrimination.Discriminating is nothing but distinction , and everyone, with the government, is paramount.Almost everything the government does is forbidden for citizens. This includes, for example, tax levy or extortion, deprivation of liberty and the monopoly of violence. Nor should anyone offend an official in function, which also contradicting freedom of expression. One of the other millions of examples could be our progressive tax system that distinguishes people with different incomes.
I am guessing the constitution of the Netherlands.Is just a gamble.