3 ms·

> Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy In the US the Constitution is supreme, so it's not like the law is whatever ordinary legis

> Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy In the US the Constitution is supreme, so it's not like the law is whatever ordinary legislation Congress passes, unlike in the UK. So someone needs to be the referee who declares when statues conflict with the constitution. If SCOTUS is not the one with that power, then who is it? Congress itself?

dragonwriter 3y ago
Note, along those lines, that, in the UK, also, the “Supreme Court” didn’t exist until 2009; prior to that, that function was served formally by the Crown-in-Parliament (the same body as the legislature), and functionally by (since 1876) the Apellate Committee of the House of Lords. So not only do the courts not exercise judicial review over Parliament, until recently the ultimate court was Parliament (nominally, and functionally a committee of the upper House.)
- dataflow 3y ago
  I'm also aware of that, but again, it doesn't really answer anything regarding the US. The constitution literally has an amendment process written into it. If Congress could just review its own statutes and say "yup that's constitutional" then they'd easily defeat the amendment process.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    I was underlining the structural differences stemming from Parliamentary sovereignty, not offering it as an answer to anything regarding the US.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      Thanks I guess, but in that case I'm confused how the UK was at all relevant to the discussion.
      - patmorgan23 3y ago
        The US is a former English colony and much of our law is based on/has its origin in English common law. When the framers were writing the constitution they were trying to fix many of the perceived problems with the Westminster system
I_am_uncreative 3y ago
The UK does have an uncodified Constitution, though I don't know if their judges have ever invalidated a law passed by their Parliament because it conflicted with it.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Note, along those lines, that, in the UK, also, the “Supreme Court” didn’t exist until 2009; prior to that, that function was served formally by the Crown-in-Parliament (the same body as the legislature), and functionally by (since 1876) the Apellate Committee of the House of Lords. So not only do the courts not exercise judicial review over Parliament, until recently the ultimate court was Parliament (nominally, and functionally a committee of the upper House.)

dataflow 3y ago
I'm also aware of that, but again, it doesn't really answer anything regarding the US. The constitution literally has an amendment process written into it. If Congress could just review its own statutes and say "yup that's constitutional" then they'd easily defeat the amendment process.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  I was underlining the structural differences stemming from Parliamentary sovereignty, not offering it as an answer to anything regarding the US.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    Thanks I guess, but in that case I'm confused how the UK was at all relevant to the discussion.
    - patmorgan23 3y ago
      The US is a former English colony and much of our law is based on/has its origin in English common law. When the framers were writing the constitution they were trying to fix many of the perceived problems with the Westminster system

I_am_uncreative 3y ago

The UK does have an uncodified Constitution, though I don't know if their judges have ever invalidated a law passed by their Parliament because it conflicted with it.