4 ms·

There's so much that's factually wrong with this comment I don't know where to start. 1. The UK does have a Bill of Rights (It's different in England and Scotla

by Veen 5y ago

There's so much that's factually wrong with this comment I don't know where to start. 1. The UK does have a Bill of Rights (It's different in England and Scotland). The English one pre-dates the US Bill of rights by a century[0]. 2. It does have a constitution, but not a written constitution in the American sense[1]. 3. The Queen doesn't nominate Bishops; she rubber stamps nominations by a committee who are approved by the PM. 4. The Queen does not vote in elections. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...

comprev 5y ago
Fun fact: In addition to the Queen, the Speaker of the House of Commons also cannot vote due to their role in keeping order between all parties.
haltingproblem 5y ago
I stopped reading around: "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;" and something about (only) Ireland repealed it in [1]. In [2] it says, quite straight faced, that "The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document. Thus, it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.[2] However, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and upholding international law". There is no codified constitution but there are constitutional principles. Because it is not "entrenched" it can be easily changed. How can someone even say this without an Orwellian sneer? If a North Korean said that we would laugh them out of the room. Edit: North Korea does have a constitution. Written. Just not followed. Britain does not have a written constitution but it is followed (how?), except when it is not as in the wag that it just takes a minister's signature to violate an unwritten (but somehow codified) constitutional principle.
- kortex 5y ago
  “If you think for a minute, is it not the case that every dictator in the world has a bill of rights, every banana republic, every republic has a bill of rights?” - Antonin Scalia A constitution without the ecosystem and institutions to carry it out is meaningless paper. Institutions without a constitution, but with a long history of case law can be just. Governments are systems but people aren't computers and laws aren't source code.
  - haltingproblem 5y ago
    This is a good train of thought even though you quoted Scalia who was a strict constructionist. Care to expand on it?
    - pfortuny 5y ago
      A constitution without separation of powers with the possibility of judging the representatives is worthless. The fact that doing so is difficult (the most blatant case being Nixon) does not make it worthless, it only helps granting the executive some stability (because it has usually been elected by the people, so it needs some berth to operate). In that sense, the US constitution is a very good early example. The independence of the judiciary is essential. I am not defending the US constitution per se, though.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  > Britain does not have a written constitution but it is followed (how?) Perhaps this is just a tacit admission that writing the rules on a piece of paper changes nothing. People follow the rules as a kind of collective consensus. Writing them down in one place wouldn’t change that.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    "The English have a system that is no system, which is also a system, only better." - I have completely forgotten the quote source, but it is a lesser cited quip from a famous political philosopher.

by Veen 5y ago

comprev 5y ago

Fun fact: In addition to the Queen, the Speaker of the House of Commons also cannot vote due to their role in keeping order between all parties.

haltingproblem 5y ago

I stopped reading around: "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;" and something about (only) Ireland repealed it in [1]. In [2] it says, quite straight faced, that "The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document. Thus, it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.[2] However, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and upholding international law". There is no codified constitution but there are constitutional principles. Because it is not "entrenched" it can be easily changed. How can someone even say this without an Orwellian sneer? If a North Korean said that we would laugh them out of the room. Edit: North Korea does have a constitution. Written. Just not followed. Britain does not have a written constitution but it is followed (how?), except when it is not as in the wag that it just takes a minister's signature to violate an unwritten (but somehow codified) constitutional principle.

kortex 5y ago
“If you think for a minute, is it not the case that every dictator in the world has a bill of rights, every banana republic, every republic has a bill of rights?” - Antonin Scalia A constitution without the ecosystem and institutions to carry it out is meaningless paper. Institutions without a constitution, but with a long history of case law can be just. Governments are systems but people aren't computers and laws aren't source code.
- haltingproblem 5y ago
  This is a good train of thought even though you quoted Scalia who was a strict constructionist. Care to expand on it?
  - pfortuny 5y ago
    A constitution without separation of powers with the possibility of judging the representatives is worthless. The fact that doing so is difficult (the most blatant case being Nixon) does not make it worthless, it only helps granting the executive some stability (because it has usually been elected by the people, so it needs some berth to operate). In that sense, the US constitution is a very good early example. The independence of the judiciary is essential. I am not defending the US constitution per se, though.
mr_toad 5y ago
> Britain does not have a written constitution but it is followed (how?) Perhaps this is just a tacit admission that writing the rules on a piece of paper changes nothing. People follow the rules as a kind of collective consensus. Writing them down in one place wouldn’t change that.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  "The English have a system that is no system, which is also a system, only better." - I have completely forgotten the quote source, but it is a lesser cited quip from a famous political philosopher.