4 ms·

>> There is absolutely a Constitution in the UK, it is simply not codified into a single document. <link> That's got to be the understatement of (many) centuri

>> There is absolutely a Constitution in the UK, it is simply not codified into a single document. <link> That's got to be the understatement of (many) centuries. AFAIK the UK constitution isn't even even codified into millions of documents, let alone a "single" one. Saying it's not in a "single" document is like saying my trillions of dollars aren't in a "single" bank account. The number of partitions really isn't the problem with that statement here. Is there a single human (or even computer program) that could even definitively list all the sentences in this "constitution", let alone an arbitrary citizen who needs to be able to become aware of them to be able to follow them? (Note I'm not asking for interpretation, but literally just listing the sentences.) Could they even do this with infinite time? Is it even possible to have an oracle that, given an arbitrary sentence, could indisputably tell you if it is in the constitution? Maybe that's asking too much. Forget enumerating the laws. Per your own link: "...this enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched." If this doesn't itself sound silly, hopefully you can at least forgive people for getting irritated at the proposition that there totally exists a "constitution"... that nobody can point to... and that doesn't actually do the one thing many people want from a constitution: being more entrenched than statutes. > Also of note; even countries with a codified constitution have parts that are uncodified. Not sure what countries you're referring to, but at least in the US, this is not the case. There is a single document that is the constitution, and (thankfully, so far) nobody is disputing what words are in fact written on that document. And that document absolutely is supreme to statutes. Interpretation of the words is obviously left to courts in the US, and courts can interpret it differently changing the effective law, but "constitution" is not a synonym for "effective law", and nobody argues over what the words to be interpreted are. And even those interpretations are still written down!

AlecSchueler 6mo ago
> Is there a single human (or even computer program) that could even definitively list all the sentences in this "constitution" No, it's a living thing. Why is this your sticking point on the existence of a constitution or not?
- dataflow 6mo ago
  >> Is there a single human (or even computer program) that could even definitively list all the sentences in this "constitution" > No, it's a living thing. Why is this your sticking point on the existence of a constitution or not? Do you never write down or sign contracts? Are verbal promises adequate for you in all transactions? If you don't see the value of laws being written down - especially the most important ones! - I can't really convince you of it here on HN. But what I can tell is that most people who care about the legitimacy of government believe it is fundamental to fairness that there be a single source of truth that can tell them the laws under which they would be rewarded or punished, before those happen.
  - howerj 6mo ago
    I think you have diverged too much...well from reality, in order to try to prove a point. Do you think most people, or lawyers, or judges in the UK spend their time trying to enumerate all the laws of the land before they proceed in their court cases? Do you think that people think that the UK system of government is illegitimate? What point are you trying to make? Because it is not grounded in reality. You can debate the merits of a codified constitution versus an uncodified one, but the UK does have a constitution, the vast majority of which is codified into many documents. The following two links might help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(political_norm)#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(political_norm)#Un... Note the second one applies to the US - a country with a mostly but not completely codified constitution.
    - AlecSchueler 6mo ago
      > I think you have diverged too much...well from reality > What point are you trying to make? Because it is not grounded in reality. Your comment would have been much more valuable without these insults and I would have been much more likely to respond, to point you to where you seemed to be misunderstanding my point. But it seems you're not here for a discussion so let's leave it.
  - 6mo ago
howerj 6mo ago
I believe interpretation is a part of the definition of a constitution, you do not, we have different definitions, oh well. I also believe the uncodified/codified distinction is not binary, it is obvious that the US constitution is far more codified than the UK constitution, the two are at opposite extremes.
- dataflow 6mo ago
  > I believe interpretation is a part of the definition of a constitution, you do not, we have different definitions, oh well. You can't just brush it aside as some quibble about definitions. It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures: one of these has an indisputable source of truth (a foundation everyone can witness) that everything else is built on top of -- however shakily! -- and the other does not. Regardless of whether you include the upper parts of this metaphorical building in your definitions or not, the foundations are not the same.
  - howerj 6mo ago
    Yes, the foundations of the constitutions are not the same, one of them has a mostly codified constitution, the other has a mostly uncodified (uncodified but mostly written down, that is not a contradiction!) constitution. They both have constitutions however, so the phase "Britain has no constitution" is wrong. To be clear, I am not saying that is good or bad that Britain has an uncodified constitution, just that from my definition (and most political and legal definitions) of what a constitution is the phrase "Britain has no constitution" is wrong. Britain of course has laws, and laws about how new laws are made, etcetera. This forms a constitution.
  - ponkpanda 6mo ago
    > It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures Yes, it is a substantive difference but it does not follow that this difference provides the 'constitution' property. > one of these has an indisputable source of truth... the foundations are not the same They are so similar as to be almost the same and if an 'indisputable source of truth' exists anywhere, it is not in the written documents or their structure but unwritten norms and rituals sit beneath both. What stops a President from simply choosing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling and what prevents the King from returning to personal rule? The lack of arbitrary rule is a defining feature of both and relies on something that emerged rather than something imposed from without by written words.

AlecSchueler 6mo ago

> Is there a single human (or even computer program) that could even definitively list all the sentences in this "constitution" No, it's a living thing. Why is this your sticking point on the existence of a constitution or not?

dataflow 6mo ago
>> Is there a single human (or even computer program) that could even definitively list all the sentences in this "constitution" > No, it's a living thing. Why is this your sticking point on the existence of a constitution or not? Do you never write down or sign contracts? Are verbal promises adequate for you in all transactions? If you don't see the value of laws being written down - especially the most important ones! - I can't really convince you of it here on HN. But what I can tell is that most people who care about the legitimacy of government believe it is fundamental to fairness that there be a single source of truth that can tell them the laws under which they would be rewarded or punished, before those happen.
- howerj 6mo ago
  I think you have diverged too much...well from reality, in order to try to prove a point. Do you think most people, or lawyers, or judges in the UK spend their time trying to enumerate all the laws of the land before they proceed in their court cases? Do you think that people think that the UK system of government is illegitimate? What point are you trying to make? Because it is not grounded in reality. You can debate the merits of a codified constitution versus an uncodified one, but the UK does have a constitution, the vast majority of which is codified into many documents. The following two links might help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(political_norm)#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(political_norm)#Un... Note the second one applies to the US - a country with a mostly but not completely codified constitution.
  - AlecSchueler 6mo ago
    > I think you have diverged too much...well from reality > What point are you trying to make? Because it is not grounded in reality. Your comment would have been much more valuable without these insults and I would have been much more likely to respond, to point you to where you seemed to be misunderstanding my point. But it seems you're not here for a discussion so let's leave it.
- 6mo ago

howerj 6mo ago

I believe interpretation is a part of the definition of a constitution, you do not, we have different definitions, oh well. I also believe the uncodified/codified distinction is not binary, it is obvious that the US constitution is far more codified than the UK constitution, the two are at opposite extremes.

dataflow 6mo ago
> I believe interpretation is a part of the definition of a constitution, you do not, we have different definitions, oh well. You can't just brush it aside as some quibble about definitions. It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures: one of these has an indisputable source of truth (a foundation everyone can witness) that everything else is built on top of -- however shakily! -- and the other does not. Regardless of whether you include the upper parts of this metaphorical building in your definitions or not, the foundations are not the same.
- howerj 6mo ago
  Yes, the foundations of the constitutions are not the same, one of them has a mostly codified constitution, the other has a mostly uncodified (uncodified but mostly written down, that is not a contradiction!) constitution. They both have constitutions however, so the phase "Britain has no constitution" is wrong. To be clear, I am not saying that is good or bad that Britain has an uncodified constitution, just that from my definition (and most political and legal definitions) of what a constitution is the phrase "Britain has no constitution" is wrong. Britain of course has laws, and laws about how new laws are made, etcetera. This forms a constitution.
- ponkpanda 6mo ago
  > It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures Yes, it is a substantive difference but it does not follow that this difference provides the 'constitution' property. > one of these has an indisputable source of truth... the foundations are not the same They are so similar as to be almost the same and if an 'indisputable source of truth' exists anywhere, it is not in the written documents or their structure but unwritten norms and rituals sit beneath both. What stops a President from simply choosing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling and what prevents the King from returning to personal rule? The lack of arbitrary rule is a defining feature of both and relies on something that emerged rather than something imposed from without by written words.