5 ms·

Even better approach: do it like the British. An 'unwritten' constitution. No need to even have a document for the plebs to read and criticize. Whatever gets a

Even better approach: do it like the British. An 'unwritten' constitution. No need to even have a document for the plebs to read and criticize. Whatever gets a majority in Parliament ends up being the so-called constitution.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
I don't think you're being fair to the British here. Their constitution, though not written as a single constitutional document, has at least parts that are written (most notably, the Magna Carta). The whole functions as something significantly more rigid than what a majority in Parliament decides.
- gustavus 3y ago
  Apparently it includes allowing for sending people to prison because they criticize politicians and jailing people who are carrying a chisel or pair of scissors though. EDIT: And because I watched it on Sunday. Remember as always ENGLAND PREVAILS!
  - NeoTar 3y ago
    Yep. One of the strengths of the British Constitution is also one of its weaknesses - under the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty "[the parliament] may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law or by precedent. " So, the things you like in a constitution are not set-in-stone and can be overturned, but so can the things you don't like.
    - maxwell 3y ago
      Yeah, in the U.S. the people retain sovereignty instead, and our Constitution, the first codified constitution in history, provides a narrow set of powers for the federal government that serves us, written after we defeated the most powerful empire up to that point near the peak of their power in the first successful war of independence. Statutes can always be tossed or repealed, but our rights may only be overturned via amendment (Gödel's hack).
    - HeckFeck 3y ago
      It all depends on the rulers respecting the spirit of the law more than twisting and revising the letter until it becomes oppressive. Unfortunately we've not had anyone who respects our liberty for some time. It's a shame - I think the 'loose arrangements/don't be legal-heavy' approach is what brings the most freedom, you're let alone and the common law governs interactions only when necessary. I am sure someone can point out why it isn't perfect but it is much more preferable to many other governments. Now that feeling that the government is more on our backs is growing. (Online "safety" bill? What in Blighty!? Who asked you to decide what was "safe" for me??) Interesting to see how it plays out conversely in the US, where it was all written down in what the founders thought was unambiguous language, but now the goal is to stuff the Supreme Court with judges who will interpret the constitution with a bias towards the way your side prefers.
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  Rigid maybe, but still rather pointless (or at least, much weaker than the constitutions of countries such as the US). Parliament is sovereign in the UK - I'm not aware of any act of Parliament being struck down in recent history for violating the Magna Carta, nor could such a thing happen as I understand it.
  - HeckFeck 3y ago
    A shame it is. With the state of the current government and its power creeping over more and more of our lives, Magna Carta could do with a comeback. I see it now: Magna Carta II: It's Time For Payback.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > I'm not aware of any act of Parliament being struck down in recent history for violating the Magna Carta No. What happens is that successive acts of Parliament overrule more and more of Magna Carta, until there's only one or two clauses still in effect. When we say "The UK doesn't have a constitution", we mean that there are no laws governing what legislation Parliament can enact, other than international treaties; and those can be repudiated even without any act of Parliament - a treaty can be revoked by stroke of the executive pen.
- testfoobar 3y ago
  Grammar police. It is "Magna Carta" - "the" is incorrect. "This is because Latin doesn’t have articles; as a result, the Latin phrase “Magna Carta” doesn’t require a “The” in front of it. " https://huntington.org/verso/magna-charta https://huntington.org/verso/magna-charta
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    I'm amused at the brash confidence that the laws of the language the word was borrowed from override the laws of the language it was borrowed into. Seems to me the grammar police are overstepping their jurisdiction and we're going to have to get the interlingual grammar courts involved to sort this out. Hope they do it soon, because English lets its speakers participate in government and this Latin sounds like a threat to democracy.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      But OP is correct; the name of the document (and the law it encodes) is Magna Carta. No article is used.
      - Clamchop 3y ago
        Sure, but that's a different justification rooted in English conventions (and even then, not perfectly reliable) rather than Latin ones. It would be as true for Harry Potter, no appeal to a foreign grammar needed.
omnicognate 3y ago
There's rather more to it than that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  While that is true, there's a parliamentary sovereignty doctrine, which makes it just about impossible to judicially overturn primary legislation.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    Except for all the times that happened – like when the High Court ruled that this passage of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (amending section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: marked F3 and F4), creating a new category of “grossly disproportionate force”: > [F3 (5A) In a householder case, the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate in those circumstances.] > (6) [F4 In a case other than a householder case,] the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances. does not “give householders carte blanche in the degree of force they use against intruders in self-defence” (ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43652308 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43652308) – in essence, making the legal situation basically the same as before this amendment was made. (Apparently the lawmakers didn't quite understand how a “self-defence” legal defence worked in court, when they were writing this one up.) As I understand, as of the ruling, there's no legal distinction between “disproportionate force” and “grossly disproportionate force”. Sure, the High Court didn't overturn it… except for the part where they basically did. They also “quashed with prospective effect” an amendment to primary legislation (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) made by a statutory instrument (The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014). There are many other instances of primary legislation on the books that manifestly say one thing, but that according to the High Court mean something different.
    - deleted 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

I don't think you're being fair to the British here. Their constitution, though not written as a single constitutional document, has at least parts that are written (most notably, the Magna Carta). The whole functions as something significantly more rigid than what a majority in Parliament decides.

gustavus 3y ago
Apparently it includes allowing for sending people to prison because they criticize politicians and jailing people who are carrying a chisel or pair of scissors though. EDIT: And because I watched it on Sunday. Remember as always ENGLAND PREVAILS!
- NeoTar 3y ago
  Yep. One of the strengths of the British Constitution is also one of its weaknesses - under the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty "[the parliament] may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law or by precedent. " So, the things you like in a constitution are not set-in-stone and can be overturned, but so can the things you don't like.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Yeah, in the U.S. the people retain sovereignty instead, and our Constitution, the first codified constitution in history, provides a narrow set of powers for the federal government that serves us, written after we defeated the most powerful empire up to that point near the peak of their power in the first successful war of independence. Statutes can always be tossed or repealed, but our rights may only be overturned via amendment (Gödel's hack).
  - HeckFeck 3y ago
    It all depends on the rulers respecting the spirit of the law more than twisting and revising the letter until it becomes oppressive. Unfortunately we've not had anyone who respects our liberty for some time. It's a shame - I think the 'loose arrangements/don't be legal-heavy' approach is what brings the most freedom, you're let alone and the common law governs interactions only when necessary. I am sure someone can point out why it isn't perfect but it is much more preferable to many other governments. Now that feeling that the government is more on our backs is growing. (Online "safety" bill? What in Blighty!? Who asked you to decide what was "safe" for me??) Interesting to see how it plays out conversely in the US, where it was all written down in what the founders thought was unambiguous language, but now the goal is to stuff the Supreme Court with judges who will interpret the constitution with a bias towards the way your side prefers.
NoboruWataya 3y ago
Rigid maybe, but still rather pointless (or at least, much weaker than the constitutions of countries such as the US). Parliament is sovereign in the UK - I'm not aware of any act of Parliament being struck down in recent history for violating the Magna Carta, nor could such a thing happen as I understand it.
- HeckFeck 3y ago
  A shame it is. With the state of the current government and its power creeping over more and more of our lives, Magna Carta could do with a comeback. I see it now: Magna Carta II: It's Time For Payback.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > I'm not aware of any act of Parliament being struck down in recent history for violating the Magna Carta No. What happens is that successive acts of Parliament overrule more and more of Magna Carta, until there's only one or two clauses still in effect. When we say "The UK doesn't have a constitution", we mean that there are no laws governing what legislation Parliament can enact, other than international treaties; and those can be repudiated even without any act of Parliament - a treaty can be revoked by stroke of the executive pen.
testfoobar 3y ago
Grammar police. It is "Magna Carta" - "the" is incorrect. "This is because Latin doesn’t have articles; as a result, the Latin phrase “Magna Carta” doesn’t require a “The” in front of it. " https://huntington.org/verso/magna-charta https://huntington.org/verso/magna-charta
- Clamchop 3y ago
  I'm amused at the brash confidence that the laws of the language the word was borrowed from override the laws of the language it was borrowed into. Seems to me the grammar police are overstepping their jurisdiction and we're going to have to get the interlingual grammar courts involved to sort this out. Hope they do it soon, because English lets its speakers participate in government and this Latin sounds like a threat to democracy.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    But OP is correct; the name of the document (and the law it encodes) is Magna Carta. No article is used.
    - Clamchop 3y ago
      Sure, but that's a different justification rooted in English conventions (and even then, not perfectly reliable) rather than Latin ones. It would be as true for Harry Potter, no appeal to a foreign grammar needed.

omnicognate 3y ago

There's rather more to it than that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...

sgjohnson 3y ago
While that is true, there's a parliamentary sovereignty doctrine, which makes it just about impossible to judicially overturn primary legislation.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  Except for all the times that happened – like when the High Court ruled that this passage of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (amending section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: marked F3 and F4), creating a new category of “grossly disproportionate force”: > [F3 (5A) In a householder case, the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate in those circumstances.] > (6) [F4 In a case other than a householder case,] the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances. does not “give householders carte blanche in the degree of force they use against intruders in self-defence” (ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43652308 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43652308) – in essence, making the legal situation basically the same as before this amendment was made. (Apparently the lawmakers didn't quite understand how a “self-defence” legal defence worked in court, when they were writing this one up.) As I understand, as of the ruling, there's no legal distinction between “disproportionate force” and “grossly disproportionate force”. Sure, the High Court didn't overturn it… except for the part where they basically did. They also “quashed with prospective effect” an amendment to primary legislation (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) made by a statutory instrument (The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014). There are many other instances of primary legislation on the books that manifestly say one thing, but that according to the High Court mean something different.
  - deleted 3y ago