4 ms·

> with probably the oldest written national laws (the constitution) still in use. The UK would easily disagree, with their founding codification in 1215.

• jrflowers 1y ago
  The Magna Carta was a list of stipulations relating to a monarch as the absolute head of state. The UK does not have that anymore.
  • defrost 1y ago
    The Magna Carta was a second, more forceful, iteration of the Charter of Liberties introduced a century earlier in 1100 by Henry I of England. Clauses of both are still part of the basis of English Common Law (the Common Law cited in the US Constitution) and the Magna Carta is still being cited in recent times by politicians and lawyers in support of (UK) constitutional positions, and still, albeit rarely, cited in UK courts in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although clause 29 was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, and that the two other surviving clauses ironically concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London and could not help the defendants. It's firmly a part of the continuously evolving history of UK law: Magna Carta carries little legal weight in modern Britain, as most of its clauses have been repealed and relevant rights ensured by other statutes, but the historian James Holt remarks that the survival of the 1215 charter in national life is a "reflexion of the continuous development of English law and administration" suggesting that what the UK lacks is the stagnation of US law which hasn't yet evolved past the errors of scale that have crept in since its foundation; the US electoral could also do with a revamp to better serve the people. * two quotes above sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
• kmeisthax 1y ago
  [dead]
• jowea 1y ago
  The UK doesn't have an entrenched constitution through. Whenever there's a simple parliamentary majority for a reform in the lower house it can be done. In the US even simple laws can require a filibuster breaking supermajority in the upper change, and changing the constitution is much harder.
  • shakna 1y ago
    The Charter of Liberties is still regularly referenced in UK law. Just because the system is Common Law, does not mean it is not entrenched. I'd suggest the US' adoption of a 2-party system likely leads to far more of that stagnation.
    • jowea 1y ago
      But that's more because they want to keep the charter, no? I mean that keeping the UK constitution "living" is much easier since the written parts can be legally changed easily. And the 2 party system is a result of US electoral and constitutional law, which is entrenched. If the US had a new constitution from scratch today I don't think it would feature the electoral college, it's there because of legal inertia.
      • shakna 1y ago
        So... The charter is an older law, than the USA's existence, right?
        • jowea 1y ago
          Yes, but I'm not arguing the US Constitution is older than the UK one, although it is much older than that of almost all countries I think. I'm arguing that the UK doesn't suffer from having an old constitution because its constitution changes more easily than the US one.
          • shakna 1y ago
            Ok... But that's not what _I_ addressed in my comment. The US doesn't operate with the oldest laws on the books.