5 ms·

Why do you think a constitution has to be written? Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down? North Korea has a written constitution

Why do you think a constitution has to be written? Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down? North Korea has a written constitution. Does does that make it better in practice than the UK’s?

illiac786 4y ago
If it’s not written down, anyone can interpret it any way he likes and debate this for the next centuries. To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc. Still better than millions of different mental interpretations. Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.
- Bancakes 4y ago
  Oh like USA's endless amendment debates and "common sense X" acts?
  - illiac786 4y ago
    yep, still better. “less worse” might be a better term here though. The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
    - Bancakes 4y ago
      Well that is within the context of young, impressionable, geopolitically and economically sheltered people expressing emotional views. So it's good that we don't enact these amendments on a whim
      - illiac786 4y ago
        Oh, don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that there should be lots of safeguards. But it should be lived. At the very least, old language should be refreshed. And yes, it will cause a lot of debate, but that’s good, that’s what democracies live from, reasonable debates – rather than “no” and “I hate you lot”.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > If it’s not written down, anyone can interpret it any way he likes and debate this for the next centuries. What does ‘right to bear arms’ precisely means? Nobody knows. > Still better than millions of different mental interpretations. There are millions of different mental interpretations of the US written constitution. Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much?
  - illiac786 4y ago
    >Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much? If you don’t write it down, no debate, no consensus, everyone believes what suits his life style best. I am not saying writing it down is foolproof. “Write down a piece of document and don’t touch it for 200 years” is definitely not a good idea, it should be updated regularly. But if given the choice today of writing down or continue verbally, I wouldn’t definitely attempt to write it down, including a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      It’s not ‘verbal’ - I’m not sure how you think the UK works? It’s precedent. > a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated Sounds like you’re thinking of law or code rather than a constitution?
      - illiac786 4y ago
        Precedence is written down, I find it acceptable. It’s a good way to make sure the “constitution” evolves. Multiple persons above refer to “constitution” as being a set of “beliefs”, “values” and “traditions”, I was pointing out that this is not a good solution in my view.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        Precedence is what happened before. The UK constitution is based on precedence.
CyberDildonics 4y ago
Why did you write this comment instead of yelling it out of your window?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

illiac786 4y ago

If it’s not written down, anyone can interpret it any way he likes and debate this for the next centuries. To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc. Still better than millions of different mental interpretations. Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.

Bancakes 4y ago
Oh like USA's endless amendment debates and "common sense X" acts?
- illiac786 4y ago
  yep, still better. “less worse” might be a better term here though. The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
  - Bancakes 4y ago
    Well that is within the context of young, impressionable, geopolitically and economically sheltered people expressing emotional views. So it's good that we don't enact these amendments on a whim
    - illiac786 4y ago
      Oh, don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that there should be lots of safeguards. But it should be lived. At the very least, old language should be refreshed. And yes, it will cause a lot of debate, but that’s good, that’s what democracies live from, reasonable debates – rather than “no” and “I hate you lot”.
chrisseaton 4y ago
> If it’s not written down, anyone can interpret it any way he likes and debate this for the next centuries. What does ‘right to bear arms’ precisely means? Nobody knows. > Still better than millions of different mental interpretations. There are millions of different mental interpretations of the US written constitution. Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much?
- illiac786 4y ago
  >Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much? If you don’t write it down, no debate, no consensus, everyone believes what suits his life style best. I am not saying writing it down is foolproof. “Write down a piece of document and don’t touch it for 200 years” is definitely not a good idea, it should be updated regularly. But if given the choice today of writing down or continue verbally, I wouldn’t definitely attempt to write it down, including a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    It’s not ‘verbal’ - I’m not sure how you think the UK works? It’s precedent. > a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated Sounds like you’re thinking of law or code rather than a constitution?
    - illiac786 4y ago
      Precedence is written down, I find it acceptable. It’s a good way to make sure the “constitution” evolves. Multiple persons above refer to “constitution” as being a set of “beliefs”, “values” and “traditions”, I was pointing out that this is not a good solution in my view.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Precedence is what happened before. The UK constitution is based on precedence.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

Why did you write this comment instead of yelling it out of your window?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]