4 ms·
I feel like this idea of a constitution (my wife, a lawyer, makes this argument) completely beggars the question. If you're going to say a constitution is just
by pasabagi 5y ago
I feel like this idea of a constitution (my wife, a lawyer, makes this argument) completely beggars the question. If you're going to say a constitution is just a gestalt of laws and norms, then there is no nation without one. I would rather restrict the notion of constitution to documents that lay out foundational principles from which all other laws derive. That's how a constitution works in France, the US, or Germany. That's also the traditional (18th C) meaning of the term.
It's precisely because there is no such document that nobody can say that a law against 'nuisance' demonstrations is an invalid law. There is no essential conflict with a higher principle, because there is no higher principle - except parlimentary prerogative.
- Y_Y 5y agoYour argument is persuasive, but I think it at least relies on a Common Law system and the jurisprudence of the English legal system and its descendants. In that context I would be inclined to agree. All the same the term "constitution" was in use in the UK sense by the 17th century, though one may argue that your narrower definition can be traced to Roman and Classical Greek constitutions at least.