NationStates Jolt Archive

What's the big deal about constitutions? Britain has survived very well without a codified constitution for centuries. When americans say things like "We'll leave your country when you can write a constitution and hold free elections", I'm always thinking "Who gives you the right to invade a nation and force them to adopt a codified constitution and democracy?". Many countries aren't ready for them, and besides, a codified constitution just ties you to the past and past ideals, better to change with the times. I know that if the US invaded Britain and forced us to write down our constitution I'd be fighting. What right do you have?

What's the big deal about constitutions? Britain has survived very well without a codified constitution for centuries. When americans say things like "We'll leave your country when you can write a constitution and hold free elections", I'm always thinking "Who gives you the right to invade a nation and force them to adopt a codified constitution and democracy?". Many countries aren't ready for them, and besides, a codified constitution just ties you to the past and past ideals, better to change with the times. I know that if the US invaded Britain and forced us to write down our constitution I'd be fighting. What right do you have?

The general idea is that without a constitution, the government can do anything that they can get a 50% vote on. A constitution is used to limit the powers of the government to further individual liberty.

I know that the UK doesn't have a constitution, unless you count the numerous laws written doewn over time, like the Bill of Rights, or whatever defines Parliment's powers. But what is to stop Parliment from some day deciding that free speech is no longer a right?

It's Pretty easy for a country to ignore it's constitution too... ever read libya's constitution, or the Soviet Unions? I think they sort of missed the mark

It's Pretty easy for a country to ignore it's constitution too... ever read libya's constitution, or the Soviet Unions? I think they sort of missed the mark
Both places do not have an armed and free populace either. See the connection?

But what is to stop Parliment from some day deciding that free speech is no longer a right?

Nothing but the people.

err... yes. though i think it generaly has more to do with an independent court system where the people can challange the government legaly.

err... yes. though i think it generaly has more to do with an independent court system where the people can challange the government legaly.

Sure, but the judiciary are still obliged to enforce the legislation passed by Parliament. We can be a b**** about it, trust me. But in the end, what Parliament says goes.

A written constitution, at least in the US and here in Brazil, means you have to have a two thirds majority to do what you like instead of half +1. That is a great way of protecting your civil liberties! There have been many times in the political history of both the US and the UK when one party has had sufficient majority to do what it wants with the constitution, if there was one.

What a constitution should provide, more than protection of civil liberties is a clear definition of the rights of the people and the limits of the power of both the legislatative body and the executive. (How the judiciary fits into this is not clear.) One of the problems in the UK is the lack of awareness in the public in general that they actually are not citizens (or were not when I left, it may have changed since) but subjects, with absolutely no rights whatsoever under British law. The rights that they do have now come from European law. The Bill of Rights (1688) gave rights to the members of parliament only.

What is stopping the government from deciding that free speech is no longer a right, the fact that it is not a right, merely a concession.

The good side of not having a constitution is that the sytem is more flexable and responsive. As the UK depends heavily on precedent and interpretation of the intent of laws, technological developments do not tend to leave their laws outdated. Intellectual property law, for example, adapted smoothly and easily to the advent of the Internet in the UK, whereas in other countries that use a written law system, this was a nightmare.

One of the problems in the UK is the lack of awareness in the public in general that they actually are not citizens (or were not when I left, it may have changed since) but subjects, with absolutely no rights whatsoever under British law. The rights that they do have now come from European law. The Bill of Rights (1688) gave rights to the members of parliament only.

I agree, but I always like to think of the difference between subject and citizen as somewhat a terminological inexactitude ;). The Human Rights Act (1998) is making a reasonably large difference to how our system of law operates. Nevertheless, I would not say that the UK had a bad record on 'human rights' record before this act. In some respects our older 'rights' are being infringed upon now. For example, the old right to "silence" of the accused is no longer observed: silence can now be used against the accused. Furthermore, the right to trial by jury for many crimes will disappear with an aim to a more efficient/cost effective system.

I agree, but I always like to think of the difference between subject and citizen as somewhat a terminological inexactitude ;). The Human Rights Act (1998) is making a reasonably large difference to how our system of law operates. Nevertheless, I would not say that the UK had a bad record on 'human rights' record before this act. In some respects our older 'rights' are being infringed upon now. For example, the old right to "silence" of the accused is no longer observed: silence can now be used against the accused. Furthermore, the right to trial by jury for many crimes will disappear with an aim to a more efficient/cost effective system.

I left the UK in 1998, in January, so this law never really affected me and I do not know the details of it.
The diference between citizen and subject, legally is huge. A subject is just that, subject to the whims and desires of the ruling group/individual. A citizen does not bear this stigma, but instead simply one of being a member of the society in general.
Did the Human Rights Act (1998) make UK subjects citizens?

Both places do not have an armed and free populace either. See the connection?

Neither does America. At least not armed. The National Guard is close, but they have just turned into federal lapdogs.

Both places do not have an armed and free populace either. See the connection?
LOL, the USSR had no shortage of guns and private citizens expert in their use (through years of compulsory military service). Had the country descended into civil war after the break-up of communism, it would have been a real bloodbath.

Sure, the Russian government interpreted laws whichever way it liked, but no-one was really eager to overthrow it. Believe it or not, it actually wasn't so bad. Freedom isn't a piece of paper in an archive, it is in the mind.

Constitutions aren't crap (well, depends what they have in them I guess...) but a written Constitution is not nor should it be a requirement for any Country, as long as they can provide a statuate (sp?) set of laws that can provide Government, IMO anyhew.

A subject is just that, subject to the whims and desires of the ruling group/individual. A citizen does not bear this stigma, but instead simply one of being a member of the society in general.
Did the Human Rights Act (1998) make UK subjects citizens?

Nope, it didn't.

What's the big deal about constitutions? Britain has survived very well without a codified constitution for centuries. When americans say things like "We'll leave your country when you can write a constitution and hold free elections", I'm always thinking "Who gives you the right to invade a nation and force them to adopt a codified constitution and democracy?". Many countries aren't ready for them, and besides, a codified constitution just ties you to the past and past ideals, better to change with the times. I know that if the US invaded Britain and forced us to write down our constitution I'd be fighting. What right do you have?

I can understand why Americans like having a Constitution, only problem is succesive US governments do not adhere to their Constitution. The US Constitution was broken by both Clinton and now Bush when they declared wars on Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, Why? Because they didn't get a declaration from Congress. The US was not in 'imminent danger' and wasn't 'invaded' by these countries.
Check out www.psr.keele.ac.uk then click on Constitutions and find out. click on the US constitution and check out section 10

ps We in Britain do have an unwritten constitution, and the Magna Carta (1215) is legally binding.

LOL, the USSR had no shortage of guns and private citizens expert in their use (through years of compulsory military service). Had the country descended into civil war after the break-up of communism, it would have been a real bloodbath.

Sure, the Russian government interpreted laws whichever way it liked, but no-one was really eager to overthrow it. Believe it or not, it actually wasn't so bad. Freedom isn't a piece of paper in an archive, it is in the mind.
Unless you happened to be an ethnic minority, farmer, capitalist, democrat, officer, or captured member of a foreign army.

I can understand why Americans like having a Constitution, only problem is succesive US governments do not adhere to their Constitution. The US Constitution was broken by both Clinton and now Bush when they declared wars on Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, Why? Because they didn't get a declaration from Congress. The US was not in 'imminent danger' and wasn't 'invaded' by these countries.
Check out www.psr.keele.ac.uk then click on Constitutions and find out. click on the US constitution and check out section 10

ps We in Britain do have an unwritten constitution, and the Magna Carta (1215) is legally binding.

Except not a single one of those was a declared war. They were "military operations", which is a clever way that the office of the President has been getting around that pesky law about Congress declaring wars since the 60s.

ps We in Britain do have an unwritten constitution, and the Magna Carta (1215) is legally binding.

The Magna Carta is legally binding on the monarch and the Dkes, Earls and Barons of the Kingdom. The unwritten constitution is not binding on anything, it is simply traditional and we have a great deal of respect for tradition.

Except not a single one of those was a declared war. They were "military operations", which is a clever way that the office of the President has been getting around that pesky law about Congress declaring wars since the 60s.

Which is where having a system that looks at the intent of a law has an advantage of one that only looks at the letter of the law. (Roman law sucks, basically, unless you are a lawyer, when it is a goldmine.)

LOL, the USSR had no shortage of guns and private citizens expert in their use (through years of compulsory military service). Had the country descended into civil war after the break-up of communism, it would have been a real bloodbath.

Sure, the Russian government interpreted laws whichever way it liked, but no-one was really eager to overthrow it. Believe it or not, it actually wasn't so bad. Freedom isn't a piece of paper in an archive, it is in the mind.

I just quoted that to my Russian friend and asked him what he thought. He replied:

"I think that whoever wrote this is a w***** who doesnt know what he's talking about. "

He didn't have the stars in there though.

He goes on to say:

"He is especially this line: 'Believe it or not, it actually wasn't so bad. Freedom isn't a piece of paper in an archive, it is in the mind.'

Oh and the Russian Government interpreted laws in only one way, in the way they were written. As it was not a democracy, it was a t o t a l i t a r i a n state so it really didnt have to "trick" its people."

ps We in Britain do have an unwritten constitution, and the Magna Carta (1215) is legally binding.
The Magna Carta: Power to the (extremely wealthy) people.

with apologies to John Stewart

The Magna Carta is a bit outdated!

I left the UK in 1998, in January, so this law never really affected me and I do not know the details of it.
The diference between citizen and subject, legally is huge. A subject is just that, subject to the whims and desires of the ruling group/individual. A citizen does not bear this stigma, but instead simply one of being a member of the society in general.
Did the Human Rights Act (1998) make UK subjects citizens?
Britain has had citizens since the introduction of The British Nationality Act 1981 (coming into force in 1983). To be a British Citizen you have to be covered under one of three points:
1.British citizenship, for people closely connected with the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
2.British Dependent Territories citizenship, for people connected with the British overseas territories;
3.British Overseas citizenship, for those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without connections with either the United Kingdom or the British overseas territories.

A British subject is a subject of Britain (strangely) who does not have citizenship, as per said Act.

Unless you happened to be an ethnic minority, farmer, capitalist, democrat, officer, or captured member of a foreign army.
Ethnic minority? Such as the Mongolians in the Far East who got left alone by everyone?

Farmer? Unless you're talking about the pre-WW2 reform period, I disagree.

Capitalist? Define "capitalist". People did make money, and spent it, and kept it in banks with interest rates and stuff. Of course the landowner to whom you paid your rent was the State, or you had to buy your house from the State, but so? How is that an invalid model?

Democrat...define democrat.

Officer? Such as my grandfather, perhaps. Died of old age in 1985, was never imprisoned. So 8,000 officers got killed in 1937. One-off event, and hardly the more modern times of which I spoke.

Captured members of a foreign army? Well, yeah, but I feel no sympathy for them.

People I know who lived and worked in Russia have a very different opinion to yours.

Britain has had citizens since the introduction of The British Nationality Act 1981 (coming into force in 1983).
*snip*
A British subject is a subject of Britain (strangely) who does not have citizenship, as per said Act.

Thank you, I sit corrected. :)

People I know who lived and worked in Russia have a very different opinion to yours.
I'm sure. But then so does the average black guy living the American Dream. There is more than one side to any story. ;)

I'm sure. But then so does the average black guy living the American Dream. There is more than one side to any story. ;)

Haha, well that's very true. It was probably getting better towards the end.. But at the end of the day it was a totalitarian state and, as such, could "go by the book": they didn't even need to twist their interpretations of the law to be oppressive. My friend's parents had their business taken away from them 'legally' and were forced to flee the country.

Neither does America. At least not armed. The National Guard is close, but they have just turned into federal lapdogs.
80 million people at least own guns in america. If the Gov. really tried to strip our rights away, they'd be screwed.

80 million people at least own guns in america. If the Gov. really tried to strip our rights away, they'd be screwed.

Better by the pen than by the sword.

What's the big deal about constitutions? Britain has survived very well without a codified constitution for centuries. When americans say things like "We'll leave your country when you can write a constitution and hold free elections", I'm always thinking "Who gives you the right to invade a nation and force them to adopt a codified constitution and democracy?". Many countries aren't ready for them, and besides, a codified constitution just ties you to the past and past ideals, better to change with the times. I know that if the US invaded Britain and forced us to write down our constitution I'd be fighting. What right do you have?

Dude, if you spent five seconds reading on this forum before blabbing your crap on your first post, you would realize that more that 75% of us agree with what your saying, this is not the first thread about this.

Britain has a constitution, and from what I understand it's pretty well codified. Moreover, it is a lot older than the constitution of the United States. Americans just have a big ego about having the first written constitution.

EDIT: Not the first... the ancient Greeks had them. Rather, the oldest still functioning.

And as others have pointed out, writing it down doesn't make it any harder for the acting government to do whatever it wants. What prevents that is having a strong constitution... and plenty of countries have very strong unwritten constitutions -- some stronger than the one the U.S. wrote down.


(And in the terms of political theory, the constitution of the United States is a lot bigger than the written document. That is among the reasons we choose to capitalize the word Constitution when referring to the document, so as to distinguish from the political constitution more generally. Political parties have constitutional status without being a part of the written constitution -- they are just a part of how we define our politics as a nation.)

...
You spoke of more modern times? Maybe if you had indicated that I wouldn't have posted. As it was I thought you were saying Soviet Russia during its history, including Stalin and Lenin's time, things weren't that bad.

Better by the pen than by the sword.

And if the pen doesn't work, then what?

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)

LOL, the USSR had no shortage of guns and private citizens expert in their use (through years of compulsory military service). Had the country descended into civil war after the break-up of communism, it would have been a real bloodbath.

Sure, the Russian government interpreted laws whichever way it liked, but no-one was really eager to overthrow it. Believe it or not, it actually wasn't so bad. Freedom isn't a piece of paper in an archive, it is in the mind.
Except for the 3+ million people who died in gulags.

But what is to stop Parliment from some day deciding that free speech is no longer a right?

Well, since the UN convention on Human Rights is a law, the Judges could declare any attempt to pass a law that free speech is no longer a right "Ultra Vires"

And if the pen doesn't work, then what?

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Um, use a felt-tip?

Well, since the UN convention on Human Rights is a law, the Judges could declare any attempt to pass a law that free speech is no longer a right "Ultra Vires"

I see the legal definition is "beyond the scope". How does that apply to the above? One law superseeds another, doesn't it? So why wouldn't the anti free speech law trump the UN convention in that area?

I see the legal definition is "beyond the scope". How does that apply to the above? One law superseeds another, doesn't it? So why wouldn't the anti free speech law trump the UN convention in that area?

Well what it means is that if a law is passed which controvines another law, then the orignal law has to be passed against. And that has to happen by another 50% case. Given that this is a piece of UN law, and its about human rights, I find it very hard to believe that it would get a more than 50% vote. And I think the UN would do something about a country repelling its Human rights legislation.

And if the pen doesn't work, then what?

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)


Poison their water supply, shoot their adults and throw their childen off the city walls.

Well, since the UN convention on Human Rights is a law, the Judges could declare any attempt to pass a law that free speech is no longer a right "Ultra Vires"

The problem with that one is that there are a lot of countries which are UN members, but don't abide by the declarations. Such as China, Saudi Arabia, etc. The UN isn't exactly enforcing human rights. That's why it's a declaration, not a law.

Yes, to clarify I was mostly speaking of the post-war period 1960s onwards (without the forced labour). Russia's history is very much one of two halves, it makes no sense to consider the two as one continuous history, a lot changed after Stalin died and it was in many respects a different country. Sadly a lot of people's opinions are informed only by the 1930s.

It is still quite high on the arbitrary oppression stakes today, old habits die hard, and as I was pointing out with Indonesia in a different thread, a lot of features remain the same after any political transition, because while political realities change, it is still the same people doing the same job. But it compares favourably with much of the rest of the world. Let's not forget that globally, it is dictatorship and not democracy that is the norm.

But since the bad old days it was never bad enough to justify anyone attempting any sort of overthrow, indeed there was no significant feeling within the country that there should even be one. People had a first-rate education, jobs, good free healthcare, no great wealth but no poverty either, until it all collapsed. Their voting choice was limited to different types of communist, but so what?

Dictatorship offends our sensibilities, but if the people are content, well, I'm not going to be first in line demanding the use of military force to effect a transition.

But since the bad old days it was never bad enough to justify anyone attempting any sort of overthrow, indeed there was no significant feeling within the country that there should even be one. People had a first-rate education, jobs, good free healthcare, no great wealth but no poverty either, until it all collapsed. Their voting choice was limited to different types of communist, but so what?


You're painting a very rosy picture of their lives but from what I've heard it wasn't like that. I mean from people who were born their, lived there, worked there, and still live and work there today. By no means was it as bad as some articles suggest...but I don't think it was "great". There were people starving on the streets of Moscow then, and there still are now. Hopefully things will get better: only time will tell.

You're painting a very rosy picture of their lives but from what I've heard it wasn't like that. I mean from people who were born their, lived there, worked there, and still live and work there today. By no means was it as bad as some articles suggest...but I don't think it was "great". There were people starving on the streets of Moscow then, and there still are now. Hopefully things will get better: only time will tell.
Oh I know. Put it this way, I'm in the UK now, and can't see myself going back. It's too rubbish. :p Hell, the Russian language even has a slang word for frozen corpses that appear in the streets when the snow melts - podsnezhniki. But if one was comparing the USSR of the 1980s with the dictatorships of today for living standards, sorry, it would rank pretty high. Not at all pleasant, but the way the average ES/UK high school leaver sees it is all weekly purges and concentration camps outside every city. :rolleyes: I'm not saying it was rosy at all, but I am trying to challenge the more silly exaggerations.

We Americans with our "big ego" have no intention whatsoever of claiming the first constitution, or the first written one either. Nor is America's Constitution the best in all situations. We believe in our Constitution as it provides for a satisfactory mix of democracy, republicanism, and federalism. And the system is allowed to check itself; the capacity for amendments is always there, and hence nothing that abuses enough of the people can continue to exist for long. Unfortunately, often unique events beyond the scope of law have proven the American Constitution's staying power to better represent the people: the ousting of the oppressive Federalist party in the election of 1800, the bareness by which Lincoln had been able to create and enforce the Emancipation Proclamation and accompanying amendment, the failure to impeach Johnson which led to the continuation of a strong executive to check and balance the legislative... We are not saying that the Constitution in its entirety is palatable to any other nation. Pure democracy worked out well enough in Greece when populations were not as great. But for a large nation, with many member states and peoples requiring representation, and a contradictory history of order and rebellion, it has lasted for two hundred years, has it not?

What's the big deal about constitutions? Britain has survived very well without a codified constitution for centuries. When americans say things like "We'll leave your country when you can write a constitution and hold free elections", I'm always thinking "Who gives you the right to invade a nation and force them to adopt a codified constitution and democracy?". Many countries aren't ready for them, and besides, a codified constitution just ties you to the past and past ideals, better to change with the times. I know that if the US invaded Britain and forced us to write down our constitution I'd be fighting. What right do you have?
really, you have a problem, really, i mean, that was 200 years ago wake up, noone cares anymore oh, wow we forced poepel to do that, hey guess what, britain made life hell for all the poor peoeple, do i care no, cause they dont anymore, so who gives a crap, your retarded, and a stupid question, however, if some country came in a force us to make a consitituiton, hell yeah id fight em, but guess what, i think the people would rather be freed from a controling country who would only have information like a month after it happended, besides its not like we had a country inthe first place and was attacking another, we were poepel from one country, and then we said, screw you guys, were making our own country, so we didnt take over anything, we kept free what was ours.

Oh I know. Put it this way, I'm in the UK now, and can't see myself going back. It's too rubbish. :p Hell, the Russian language even has a slang word for frozen corpses that appear in the streets when the snow melts - podsnezhniki. But if one was comparing the USSR of the 1980s with the dictatorships of today for living standards, sorry, it would rank pretty high. Not at all pleasant, but the way the average ES/UK high school leaver sees it is all weekly purges and concentration camps outside every city. :rolleyes: I'm not saying it was rosy at all, but I am trying to challenge the more silly exaggerations.

Yeah the amount of crap that people get taught. One of my best friends at school was Russian, (I only left last year), so I and a few other people talked to him about what it is/was like to live there. There is still a lingering perception of Russia being backwards. This is probably in part due to the effects of past capitalist propaganda...and the curriculum in the UK also focuses on pre-war Russia and Russia during the Cold War. Given this is the focus, it doesn't surprise me the views that people leave school with. In my mind Russian physicists are Class A. And a Ph.D from Russia deserves the respect it gets. Compared to the dictatorships of today, it was most likely better. Although I wouldn't know for sure: I've only ever been there on holdiay.

The Magna Carta is a bit outdated!
Sorry, I have to get this in. I quickly checked to see if anyone else had written this, but don't kill me if I missed it.

The Magna Carta is a very significant document. If I remember correctly it is the first instance (or at least the oldest and still in use) of the idea that"no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived ... except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land", and "to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice". Also I think George Washington and other founding fathers liked the Magna Carta and large parts of the US consitution are modeled on the Magna Carta. (please don't ask me to back up that claim, it'll take me ages to find all the evidence again :()

I do, however, agree that large parts of the Magna Carta are outdated, but it's still a significant document.

The Magna Carta is a very significant document. If I remember correctly it is the first instance (or at least the oldest and still in use) of the idea of 'the right to trial before your peers' and 'innocent until proven guilty'..

Well it's definitely a very siginificant document and well-ahead of its time. "Innocent until proven guilty" was not, however, put in place until the 1800s. In the 1700s you couldn't even swear someone in as a witness to testify for you against the Crown. I'm not saying it isn't significant: it is. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty", however, is still a relatively new one.

really, you have a problem, really, i mean, that was 200 years ago wake up, noone cares anymore oh, wow we forced poepel to do that, hey guess what, britain made life hell for all the poor peoeple, do i care no, cause they dont anymore, so who gives a crap, your retarded, and a stupid question, however, if some country came in a force us to make a consitituiton, hell yeah id fight em, but guess what, i think the people would rather be freed from a controling country who would only have information like a month after it happended, besides its not like we had a country inthe first place and was attacking another, we were poepel from one country, and then we said, screw you guys, were making our own country, so we didnt take over anything, we kept free what was ours.

The full stop is a beautiful thing. I believe it is called a period in the USA.

The point he's trying to make is whether it's right to invade a country just to impose a codified constitution, elections and a democracy. 200 years ago America fought for their freedom: the people of Iraq are doing it now.

Well it's definitely a very siginificant document and well-ahead of its time. "Innocent until proven guilty" was not, however, put in place until the 1800s. In the 1700s you couldn't even swear someone in as a witness to testify for you against the Crown. I'm not saying it isn't significant: it is. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty", however, is still a relatively new one.

How do - (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

and - (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

not constitute "innocent until proven guilty"?

How do - (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

and - (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

not constitute "innocent until proven guilty"?

"Except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land".

However, the law of the land...

"I have been unable to discover, however, that the dogma 'A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty', in the form of a brocard, anywhere occurs before the nineteenth century...On the whole, then, it is safe to say that before the beginning of the nineteenth century there was no explicit presumtion of innocence".

"It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the prisoner obtained...the last priviledge of giving evidence on his own behalf...He had no access to books, no meaning of knowing the exact charge that was to be brought against him...nor the witnesses who would testify to it. His trial was extraordinarily summary, never extending beyond a day, and execution usually following upon judgement with irreparable celerity. His inability to call sworn witnesses in capital cases was perhaps the most remarkable of these handicaps".

"In sum, then, we may conclude that four hundred years ago in all criminal trials of which we have any record, the dice were loaded heavily against the acacused. The presumption of innocence was not only absent from, but antagonistic to, the whole system of penal procedure. How and why have we come to hold the contrary view so strongly that it is one of the most unquestioned axioms in the whole of our law? -- C K Allen, 1931.

Perhaps the most basic of a framework is there. But the presumption as we know it today was far from being imposed by the Magna Carta..

Ok, I'll conceed that point... I just didn't like someone putting down the Magna Carta. Probably the closest thing I come to having what could be considered a nationalist pride about.

I'm British too. I'm not knocking it ;).

*stabs Blunkett for his silly law trying to delay justice to some muslims*
*dances happily that the law lords decided the law contravened the EU human rights act*

What's the big deal about constitutions? Britain has survived very well without a codified constitution for centuries. When americans say things like "We'll leave your country when you can write a constitution and hold free elections", I'm always thinking "Who gives you the right to invade a nation and force them to adopt a codified constitution and democracy?". Many countries aren't ready for them, and besides, a codified constitution just ties you to the past and past ideals, better to change with the times. I know that if the US invaded Britain and forced us to write down our constitution I'd be fighting. What right do you have?

Well Iraq has existed as a nation in some form or another since babylon, i think they've certanly had enugh time to get their act together. It could be worse, you could have a country like Canada with the Charter of rights and freedoms ( the best constitution as far as integrity ) that was designed for a capitist nation that ommited the right to own property :confused:

*stabs Blunkett for his silly law trying to delay justice to some muslims*
*dances happily that the law lords decided the law contravened the EU human rights act*

Long live the law lords!

(PS: Alliteration at its finest!)

What's the big deal about constitutions? Britain has survived very well without a codified constitution for centuries. When americans say things like "We'll leave your country when you can write a constitution and hold free elections", I'm always thinking "Who gives you the right to invade a nation and force them to adopt a codified constitution and democracy?". Many countries aren't ready for them, and besides, a codified constitution just ties you to the past and past ideals, better to change with the times. I know that if the US invaded Britain and forced us to write down our constitution I'd be fighting. What right do you have?

1. The fact that our Constitution can be amended to adapt to the current times means that it remains fluid.

2. Yes, thats right, change with the times. From a Englishman, who still has a monarch, that is patently ridiculous.

3. What country, precisely, isn't ready for a constitution that will limit their government and (hopefully) prevent a tyrannical dictatorship, monarchy, or oligarchy from forming?

4. What's wrong with free elections?


I think you might want to think this through some more...

2. Yes, thats right, change with the times. From a Englishman, who still has a monarch, that is patently ridiculous.
.

No more ridiculous than believing the world, universe and everything was created in 7 days!

On a more serious note. The Queen does no harm, if she was causing harm we would remove her. For England, there is no need as of yet to produce a written constitution. When there is a need...we will do it :).

ps We in Britain do have an unwritten constitution, and the Magna Carta (1215) is legally binding.
how about the thing that william signed?
english bill of rights?
dont remember exactly

No more ridiculous than believing the world, universe and everything was created in 7 days!

On a more serious note. The Queen does no harm, if she was causing harm we would remove her. For England, there is no need as of yet to produce a written constitution. When there is a need...we will do it :).

However, my point still stands. Telling AMERICANS to change with the times, when we are known specifically for being the most morally corrupt and utterly degenerate nation on the planet, is very funny when coming from a "civilized" nation. Americans are the harbingers of the future, which frightens me. That the rest of the world follows our example is worse.

However, my point stands. And yes, I was joking, but in a half-serious way.

And the 7 days thing is no worse than thinking we are decended from monkeys. They both sound ridiculous. So does spontaneous combustion. For that matter, most of the worlds best known theories or beliefs sound ridiculous. Humans ignore the obvious, and stick with that which remains contestable.

"Except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land".

However, the law of the land...

"I have been unable to discover, however, that the dogma 'A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty', in the form of a brocard, anywhere occurs before the nineteenth century...On the whole, then, it is safe to say that before the beginning of the nineteenth century there was no explicit presumtion of innocence".

"It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the prisoner obtained...the last priviledge of giving evidence on his own behalf...He had no access to books, no meaning of knowing the exact charge that was to be brought against him...nor the witnesses who would testify to it. His trial was extraordinarily summary, never extending beyond a day, and execution usually following upon judgement with irreparable celerity. His inability to call sworn witnesses in capital cases was perhaps the most remarkable of these handicaps".

"In sum, then, we may conclude that four hundred years ago in all criminal trials of which we have any record, the dice were loaded heavily against the acacused. The presumption of innocence was not only absent from, but antagonistic to, the whole system of penal procedure. How and why have we come to hold the contrary view so strongly that it is one of the most unquestioned axioms in the whole of our law? -- C K Allen, 1931.

Perhaps the most basic of a framework is there. But the presumption as we know it today was far from being imposed by the Magna Carta..

And what country came into existance around 1800?

how about the thing that william signed?
english bill of rights?
dont remember exactly

It's still legally binding...if that's what you mean.

It's still legally binding...if that's what you mean.
i'm just giving another example

Once again I must interject with a tangentially humorous observation. England really should get with the program. It is still bound by a document signed in 1215 fer christs sakes!

However, my point still stands. Telling AMERICANS to change with the times, when we are known specifically for being the most morally corrupt and utterly degenerate nation on the planet, is very funny when coming from a "civilized" nation. Americans are the harbingers of the future, which frightens me. That the rest of the world follows our example is worse.

However, my point stands. And yes, I was joking, but in a half-serious way.

And the 7 days thing is no worse than thinking we are decended from monkeys. They both sound ridiculous. So does spontaneous combustion. For that matter, most of the worlds best known theories or beliefs sound ridiculous. Humans ignore the obvious, and stick with that which remains contestable.

I'm not the one telling Americans to change with the times. I'm not agreeing with whoever said that! I'm just defending my Queen! LONG LIVE OUR GRACIOUS QUEEN! :).

And the argument that a Constitution is not needed is utterly ridiculous. The US Constitution is a blueprint for the US Government. It tells us who gets to do what and how they get to do it. It's a very effective document, when viewed from a practical sense.

And what country came into existance around 1800?

Argh...what country...what country! My mind itches! I don't know...but I know that Ireland became part of England around 1800! Well...in a way :)

Once again I must interject with a tangentially humorous observation. England really should get with the program. It is still bound by a document signed in 1215 fer christs sakes!

We like to think of it as being tradition ;). Others call it backward thinking...!

We like to think of it as being tradition ;). Others call it backward thinking...!
lol.
By the way, I love the queen. She is so wonderfully powerless. I actually think ya'll took an even better road. You kept the monarch, and took away the power. What better reminder could there be?

lol.
By the way, I love the queen. She is so wonderfully powerless. I actually think ya'll took an even better road. You kept the monarch, and took away the power. What better reminder could there be?

Good point. I'd never thought of it that way. She's a figurehead now...nothing more. She doesn't mention politics or bring them up. Take the fox hunting ban, for example, she was blatantly opposed to that so strongly... I just don't think she's worth getting rid of...It'd probably cost loads to get rid of her and write a constitution anyway.

And having the Queen and so on and so forth can make such interesting debate. I mean afterall, theoretically, the Queen is in charge of all of our nuclear weapons!

Neither does America. At least not armed. The National Guard is close, but they have just turned into federal lapdogs.

There's no possible way that you're surprised that the National Guard has turned into a federal unit.

And what country came into existance around 1800?

It says the end of the 19th century, which would be around 1900

It says the end of the 19th century, which would be around 1900

In that case I choose Banaba, which was annexed in 1900. (Ocean Island).