4 ms·

> 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? No

> 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.
      - austinjp 4y ago
        In what way? Precedence of what? "What happened before" in the UK has for thousands of years favoured (to put it mildly) the incumbent powers-that-be. Seems like a convenient way to perpetuate inequality.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > In what way? Precedence of what? I don’t get what you’re finding confusing. For example the Accession ceremony we just had - why was it like that? Because that’s how it happened last time - that’s what precedence is. Why does writing it down make it more equal?
        austinjp 4y ago
        I'm not confused :) The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!" That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change. You suggest: > The UK constitution is based on precedence. It's clear from the discussion here that even the existence of a constitution in the UK is debatable, let alone it's contents. It's been pointed out here that precise meaning in written constitutions can still be debated. This is a very weak argument against writing a constitution; instead it's a strong argument for public debate of how a constitution should be interpreted, and possibly updated. Basing anything exclusively and wholly on what has gone before guarantees anachronism and a failure to adapt. Basing an unwritten constitution on the say-so of monarchs and their bloody disputes with revolutionaries over centuries is patently bananas. It would be laughable if it didn't have real consequences (various of which have been pointed out in the contents here). Why not write it down? Imagine running a project like this. Dev: "Boss, remind me why we're developing an Android app in MATLAB?" Boss: "We've always used MATLAB." Dev: "I don't think this will work, could we try Python instead?" Dev gets bundled into a police van

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.
    - austinjp 4y ago
      In what way? Precedence of what? "What happened before" in the UK has for thousands of years favoured (to put it mildly) the incumbent powers-that-be. Seems like a convenient way to perpetuate inequality.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > In what way? Precedence of what? I don’t get what you’re finding confusing. For example the Accession ceremony we just had - why was it like that? Because that’s how it happened last time - that’s what precedence is. Why does writing it down make it more equal?
        austinjp 4y ago
        I'm not confused :) The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!" That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change. You suggest: > The UK constitution is based on precedence. It's clear from the discussion here that even the existence of a constitution in the UK is debatable, let alone it's contents. It's been pointed out here that precise meaning in written constitutions can still be debated. This is a very weak argument against writing a constitution; instead it's a strong argument for public debate of how a constitution should be interpreted, and possibly updated. Basing anything exclusively and wholly on what has gone before guarantees anachronism and a failure to adapt. Basing an unwritten constitution on the say-so of monarchs and their bloody disputes with revolutionaries over centuries is patently bananas. It would be laughable if it didn't have real consequences (various of which have been pointed out in the contents here). Why not write it down? Imagine running a project like this. Dev: "Boss, remind me why we're developing an Android app in MATLAB?" Boss: "We've always used MATLAB." Dev: "I don't think this will work, could we try Python instead?" Dev gets bundled into a police van