5 ms·

We don’t have a written constitution, so if you remove all the pomp and tradition it’s highly likely some things do actually go wrong as people forget they’re m

by exdsq 4y ago

We don’t have a written constitution, so if you remove all the pomp and tradition it’s highly likely some things do actually go wrong as people forget they’re meant to happen.

simonh 4y ago
The US constitution is a handful of pages, and only a few lines actually specify how the government should function on a day to day basis. If they forgot everything but the constitution and worked out everything else again from scratch, the result would likely be completely unrecognisable. Furthermore there's an argument to be made that the UK system of government is considerably more modern that that of the US. After all, their system is essentially a direct copy of the UK system of the time, with a few minor tweaks. The house is parliament, the Senate is the House of Lords, and the President is an elected King George V. Signing laws is Royal Assent, dissolving the House is Prorogation, he can even pardon criminals. I say George V specifically because the powers of the crown have been massively reformed since, really from Queen Anne onwards, but the US system has remained frozen in time.
- exdsq 4y ago
  That’s true of the US but ignores the fact only 3 countries in the world don’t have written constitutions - the UK, New Zealand, and Israel. I’m not being sarcastic when I say a lot of this is managed in the form of strange old traditions that, if stopped, would render the country fairly useless till they’re all codified somewhere.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    "would render the country fairly useless till they’re all codified somewhere" Not really, almost all of the things done by government for the daily management of the country are not related to the constitution and are already codified. You would need to figure out, agree and codify a mechanism for changing power, but you can arrange it so that you have years to do it and codifying that small part is not that huge of a task; USA had long conventions but that was more because of the need to actually create a country; and many other countries post-revolutions have functioned quite reasonably while codifying the constitutions, because it really doesn't affect the daily things, and you can run on interim rules (in UK's case, continuing as before for a limited time) until it's done.
  - lambertsimnel 4y ago
    Don't Canada and Sweden also lack written constitutions?
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      "According to ... the Constitution Act, 1982, the Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which includes the Constitution Act, 1982), acts and orders referred to in its schedule (including in particular the Constitution Act, 1867...), and any amendments to these documents."[0] "The Basic Laws of Sweden (Swedish: Sveriges grundlagar) are the four constitutional laws of the Kingdom of Sweden that regulate the Swedish political system, acting in a similar manner to the constitutions of most countries. ... Together, they constitute a basic framework that stands above other laws and regulation, and also define which agreements are themselves above normal Swedish law."[1] You're right, though, that sounds a lot like the arrangement that Israel has, and the Wikipedia article for the "Basic Laws of Israel"[2] says (without citation): "Israel is one of 6 countries (along with Canada, New Zealand, San Marino, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom) that operates entirely or in part according to an uncodified constitution..." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Sweden [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel
spacedcowboy 4y ago
Living in the US, and looking at how (for example) their second amendment has ruined their society, but it's considered heresy to countenance change to the holy document, I really don't want the UK to go down that path. There are places with written constitutions that have turned out better than the US one, but if you look at parallels between the UK and other nations, the US is the most likely one for the UK to follow. That way lies ruin.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  The US Constitution has been regularly amended since the beginning. Your claim that it would be heresy falls flat here. 2nd amendment ruined society, exactly how? The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law. What is in ruins?
  - spacedcowboy 4y ago
    I didn't claim that amending the constitution was heresy. I claimed that removing the second amendment is heresy. And I stand by that. [edit: on re-reading, the above is not true. I meant to claim that removing the 2A was heresy. My bad] Look, this is just an opinion, but from the outside looking in, your society is frankly awful at looking after its people, and the everyone-gets-a-gun made sense a few hundred years ago with frontier justice, but certainly doesn't today. The gun culture doesn't create (as claimed) a "polite society", it creates a society based on fear, where everything is much more dangerous because guns are, at least potentially, involved. I've been stopped by the police twice in my lifetime for speeding - once when I was a kid just passed his test, once a decade or so ago driving up the 280 to SF Airport and running late. The one in the US was a far more fraught affair - I suddenly remembered advice to keep your hands visible, don't make any sudden moves, etc. etc. In contrast the UK one was a walk in the park. Got the ticket, the policeman even cracked a joke to reduce the tension, and the worst part was telling my mother (I was still driving on her insurance). That's an anecdote, not data, but it's a microcosm of any interaction with the police. Over here every tinpot town has military hardware and SWAT teams because the criminals might have guns, the police are poorly trained in general, SWAT teams included, and the interaction between police and policed is far more tense, controlling and authoritative as a result. Because of guns being so prolific, the Peelian principles of policing are pretty much impossible to apply, and so US police do their job with overwhelming force for the given situation and employ fear as a standard tactic... Every shopkeeper is more alert for guns; Another anecdote: I was being driven from McCarrean airport to a hotel in Vegas for a trade show before I started living here, and my cab driver pulled out in front of someone, who chased him, got alongside and pulled a gun (!!!). My cab driver pulled one right back at him (!!!!!!). They yelled at each other and went their different ways. Could have gone a lot differently. This sort of thing doesn't happen in civilized society. > The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law Well, great ? It doesn't change how American society interacts. And the abuse of "religious freedoms" to oppress people is another huge problem in American society in general. I wouldn't go claiming that one, personally. To be clear, I didn't mean that the 2A was the only reason American society is ruined, but it's more along the lines of (with apologies to EI, this is from memory): "The gun doesn't kill people, people kill people" "Well, yes, but the gun helps, doesn't it? I mean, if I walked up behind someone and yelled BANG! they're not very likely to drop dead, are they ? They'd have to be pretty dodgy on the old ticker for that to kill them" In the same way, the 2A hasn't killed American society, but it helps. Feel free to disagree :) I don't really care about fake internet points, and I realize this isn't a popular opinion in America, but from the outside looking in - y'all are nuts.

by exdsq 4y ago

We don’t have a written constitution, so if you remove all the pomp and tradition it’s highly likely some things do actually go wrong as people forget they’re meant to happen.

simonh 4y ago

The US constitution is a handful of pages, and only a few lines actually specify how the government should function on a day to day basis. If they forgot everything but the constitution and worked out everything else again from scratch, the result would likely be completely unrecognisable. Furthermore there's an argument to be made that the UK system of government is considerably more modern that that of the US. After all, their system is essentially a direct copy of the UK system of the time, with a few minor tweaks. The house is parliament, the Senate is the House of Lords, and the President is an elected King George V. Signing laws is Royal Assent, dissolving the House is Prorogation, he can even pardon criminals. I say George V specifically because the powers of the crown have been massively reformed since, really from Queen Anne onwards, but the US system has remained frozen in time.

exdsq 4y ago
That’s true of the US but ignores the fact only 3 countries in the world don’t have written constitutions - the UK, New Zealand, and Israel. I’m not being sarcastic when I say a lot of this is managed in the form of strange old traditions that, if stopped, would render the country fairly useless till they’re all codified somewhere.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  "would render the country fairly useless till they’re all codified somewhere" Not really, almost all of the things done by government for the daily management of the country are not related to the constitution and are already codified. You would need to figure out, agree and codify a mechanism for changing power, but you can arrange it so that you have years to do it and codifying that small part is not that huge of a task; USA had long conventions but that was more because of the need to actually create a country; and many other countries post-revolutions have functioned quite reasonably while codifying the constitutions, because it really doesn't affect the daily things, and you can run on interim rules (in UK's case, continuing as before for a limited time) until it's done.
- lambertsimnel 4y ago
  Don't Canada and Sweden also lack written constitutions?
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    "According to ... the Constitution Act, 1982, the Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which includes the Constitution Act, 1982), acts and orders referred to in its schedule (including in particular the Constitution Act, 1867...), and any amendments to these documents."[0] "The Basic Laws of Sweden (Swedish: Sveriges grundlagar) are the four constitutional laws of the Kingdom of Sweden that regulate the Swedish political system, acting in a similar manner to the constitutions of most countries. ... Together, they constitute a basic framework that stands above other laws and regulation, and also define which agreements are themselves above normal Swedish law."[1] You're right, though, that sounds a lot like the arrangement that Israel has, and the Wikipedia article for the "Basic Laws of Israel"[2] says (without citation): "Israel is one of 6 countries (along with Canada, New Zealand, San Marino, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom) that operates entirely or in part according to an uncodified constitution..." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Sweden [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel

spacedcowboy 4y ago

Living in the US, and looking at how (for example) their second amendment has ruined their society, but it's considered heresy to countenance change to the holy document, I really don't want the UK to go down that path. There are places with written constitutions that have turned out better than the US one, but if you look at parallels between the UK and other nations, the US is the most likely one for the UK to follow. That way lies ruin.

engineer_22 4y ago
The US Constitution has been regularly amended since the beginning. Your claim that it would be heresy falls flat here. 2nd amendment ruined society, exactly how? The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law. What is in ruins?
- spacedcowboy 4y ago
  I didn't claim that amending the constitution was heresy. I claimed that removing the second amendment is heresy. And I stand by that. [edit: on re-reading, the above is not true. I meant to claim that removing the 2A was heresy. My bad] Look, this is just an opinion, but from the outside looking in, your society is frankly awful at looking after its people, and the everyone-gets-a-gun made sense a few hundred years ago with frontier justice, but certainly doesn't today. The gun culture doesn't create (as claimed) a "polite society", it creates a society based on fear, where everything is much more dangerous because guns are, at least potentially, involved. I've been stopped by the police twice in my lifetime for speeding - once when I was a kid just passed his test, once a decade or so ago driving up the 280 to SF Airport and running late. The one in the US was a far more fraught affair - I suddenly remembered advice to keep your hands visible, don't make any sudden moves, etc. etc. In contrast the UK one was a walk in the park. Got the ticket, the policeman even cracked a joke to reduce the tension, and the worst part was telling my mother (I was still driving on her insurance). That's an anecdote, not data, but it's a microcosm of any interaction with the police. Over here every tinpot town has military hardware and SWAT teams because the criminals might have guns, the police are poorly trained in general, SWAT teams included, and the interaction between police and policed is far more tense, controlling and authoritative as a result. Because of guns being so prolific, the Peelian principles of policing are pretty much impossible to apply, and so US police do their job with overwhelming force for the given situation and employ fear as a standard tactic... Every shopkeeper is more alert for guns; Another anecdote: I was being driven from McCarrean airport to a hotel in Vegas for a trade show before I started living here, and my cab driver pulled out in front of someone, who chased him, got alongside and pulled a gun (!!!). My cab driver pulled one right back at him (!!!!!!). They yelled at each other and went their different ways. Could have gone a lot differently. This sort of thing doesn't happen in civilized society. > The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law Well, great ? It doesn't change how American society interacts. And the abuse of "religious freedoms" to oppress people is another huge problem in American society in general. I wouldn't go claiming that one, personally. To be clear, I didn't mean that the 2A was the only reason American society is ruined, but it's more along the lines of (with apologies to EI, this is from memory): "The gun doesn't kill people, people kill people" "Well, yes, but the gun helps, doesn't it? I mean, if I walked up behind someone and yelled BANG! they're not very likely to drop dead, are they ? They'd have to be pretty dodgy on the old ticker for that to kill them" In the same way, the 2A hasn't killed American society, but it helps. Feel free to disagree :) I don't really care about fake internet points, and I realize this isn't a popular opinion in America, but from the outside looking in - y'all are nuts.