NationStates Jolt Archive

Well whats it for? I know a lot of Americans hold it dear but I find it hard to fathom why? I know its a barrier to certain bits of leglislation with some laws being deemed unconstitutional but if congress make laws then surley they should hold soverignty over a historical document. Consider it was written at a time when slavery was considered acceptable, in a hundred years time what happens if some aspect is deemed backwards, will more amendments be written? Remember that the Weimer republic's constition couldn't stop Hitler.To me the whole thing seems unnessary. Thoughts?

The primary role of the Constitution is to define the powers a government has and more importantly, to define the powers a government doesn't have.

It was written under the (correct) premise that the greatest potential threat to a group of people is their own government.

It is VERY VERY VERY necessary.

If we did not have the Constitution, the present US Government could simply run us over. It is an almost sacred document, as far as in importance to the people of the nation. It is the "foundation" of our government and society. Without it, I think we'd be in a lot worse condition even than we are in now.

I feel it is necessary, it is imposible to follow the letter of the law, if the law isn't written down. People could twist it very easily "going from memory". I don't really feel that it's backwards either since it can be (and has been) amended.

It is VERY VERY VERY necessary.

If we did not have the Constitution, the present US Government could simply run us over. It is an almost sacred document, as far as in importance to the people of the nation. It is the "foundation" of our government and society. Without it, I think we'd be in a lot worse condition even than we are in now.

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.

Well in theory at least...

If you comsider the degree to which basic rights have been curtailed even with a written document it's extremely neccissary. How far could the fed go if we did'nt have a constitution that says plainly "NO you can't do that" In it's most noble moments the constitution protects the few from the majority.

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.

But Britain is also a lot older than the United States; the country has been established at least partially as a political entity for well over a millenium, so many of the liberties were accrued over time, through precedent and experience rather than determined outright. As a result, a Constitution isn't needed in the same way as it is here since Britain has existed for so long.

. Consider it was written at a time when slavery was considered acceptable
Hence the whole amendment thing.

in a hundred years time what happens if some aspect is deemed backwards, will more amendments be written?Yes. That's...the whole point of amendments.

YES we need a written Constitution. It puts limits on the government's otherwise arbitrary power.

what are you, retarded?

Of course the constitution is neccesary.

if congress make laws then surley they should hold soverignty over a historical document.

no. the constitution was written to show what this country is meant to be. Without it, there would be no defined seperation of powers. in addition, the bill of rights is attached to the constitution - want to get rid of that too?


Consider it was written at a time when slavery was considered acceptable,

And when it became UN-acceptable, we changed that part. still with me?

in a hundred years time what happens if some aspect is deemed backwards, will more amendments be written?

sure. If they truly think we screwed up then ok. good for them. it's each generations right to influence the highest law of the land if thy deem it neccesary.

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.

As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong) common law isn't in the hands of the people, it's in the hands of precedent. It's a buildup of formailizations, rules, traditions, and court decisions from over the course of a long period of time. That's basically what the US Constitution is. The US is a bit more of a pure democracy than Britain, as such it needs firmer checks. A Constitution or something like it is even more necessary than democracy itself. If you look at the countries that have democracy without checks versus countries that have checks without democracy the ones with the checks are vastly better off. Most of the worst governments in the world are illiberal democracies.

what i want to know is : Who voted "NO" on the poll.

guess it must have been the guy who started the thread

Well whats it for? I know a lot of Americans hold it dear but I find it hard to fathom why? I know its a barrier to certain bits of leglislation with some laws being deemed unconstitutional but if congress make laws then surley they should hold soverignty over a historical document. Consider it was written at a time when slavery was considered acceptable, in a hundred years time what happens if some aspect is deemed backwards, will more amendments be written? Remember that the Weimer republic's constition couldn't stop Hitler.To me the whole thing seems unnessary. Thoughts?


A written constitution is important for a new nation. It sets the ground rules. It is more than just a "historical document" it is the very basis of the law. The constitution is law, it the the ordering of our federal government, the definitions of the branches and their roles, and an outline of what rights law can and cannot govern. Congress doesn't have soverignty over the constitution, congress is granted it's soverignty by the constitution.

Unlike England (or most of Europe) the United States didn't gradually become a free nation. We didn't have a royal family that slowly ceded power over a few centuries. The United States was born after an armed revolution, a revolt against all of the old ways. As a result, new rules needed to be established. Whereas English common law has a half century or so of precedent and tradition, the United States had zero. A written constitution prevented anarchy and confusion, it described for everyone the way in which government worked.

As time goes on, as circumstances have changed, so too has the constitution. It is designed to be updated and edited, but the process for doing so is(by design) very difficult. If something is so serious that it needs to be changed, it takes major united effort on the part of congress and the states. If you look at the history of constitutional ammendments after the first 10 (all of which came with the constitution originally) they have been mostly procedural. The only exceptions are prohibition (which was later repealed), the income tax (which became necessary as our nation grew), the group of ammendments that were added following the civil war, and the changes in who gets to vote as society matured.

what i want to know is : Who voted "NO" on the poll.

guess it must have been the guy who started the thread

I voted no, but that's only because we don't have one in Britain, and still manage to have a a high standard of government (at least until Blair gutted the House of lords by taking out all the peers who sat there by birthright :mad: )

I voted no, but that's only because we don't have one in Britain, and still manage to have a a high standard of government (at least until Blair gutted the House of lords by taking out all the peers who sat there by birthright :mad: )

see... your PM did something that maybe should not have been done.

if you had a constitution, things that should be illegal are declared illegal in writing

and are you complaining that there are less government positions being handed out on the basis of birthright? Thats a good thing.

the constitution is vital, it protects (well...protected) americans from abuses of power like those of fdr lincoln etc....it was good when it actually was unbreakable law

I voted no, but that's only because we don't have one in Britain, and still manage to have a a high standard of government (at least until Blair gutted the House of lords by taking out all the peers who sat there by birthright :mad: )


Umm, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is it a bad thing that people are no longer involved in governance by birthright?

abuses of power like those of fdr lincoln etc

what?

it was good when it actually was unbreakable law

which was... never. There was always an ammendment system.

I voted no, but that's only because we don't have one in Britain, and still manage to have a a high standard of government (at least until Blair gutted the House of lords by taking out all the peers who sat there by birthright :mad: )
**** birthright. That is all.

Umm, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is it a bad thing that people are no longer involved in governance by birthright?

As far as I can tell it's their equivalent to a Constitution. Both serve to slow down processes and give the past a greater say.

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.


Yes, but Britian is defined as a Constitutional Monarchy, meaning that the underlying foundation of law is what the present ruling monarch deems it to be (again, in theory). The parlimentary system of the UK is a wonder in that it has no constitutional framewrok to guide it, and therefore could be open to a ton of abuse in the wrong hands (for example, and I konw its far fetched, if the BNP came to power, they could introduce massively discriminatory laws and only the fact that the King/Queen has to sign it would stop that from happening)

Ireland's consititution on the other hand, is vital to us. Without it, and its definitions of what the Irish people consider their rights and dues, we'd still have to use the old British laws that we lived under as a part of the UK. Kind of defeats the whole self government thing. Remember, a constitution is given to the people, by the people. That's why it is so important.

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.


Nazi Germany is a prime example of what can happen when power is placed into peoples hands without checks.

Is it necessary? No.

Is it good? Yes.

and are you complaining that there are less government positions being handed out on the basis of birthright? Thats a good thing.

Prove it!

The great thing about hereditary peers was that because they owed their seat in Parliament to no-one, they were free to vote and act with their consciences, rather than being forced to become mere delegates of political parties as MPs/Congressmen often are. Although you could argue that their views are irrelevant because they have no democratic legitimacy, I think that the way in which they improved the quality of legislation and prevented certain howlers (like the Hunting Act*) being passed into law more than redeems them.

However, it should be understood that since 1949, the democratically elected Commons has been able to override the Lords with the Parliament Act. This means that in areas of civil rights (such as equalising the age of consent) the Common has been able to override reactionary old men in the Lords, without creating a constitutional crisis.

It may sound archaic and nonsensical to most Americans, but this system worked remarkably well, and has saved us from the excesses of FPTP democracy.

*Although the Hunting Act has now passed into law, it was so badly written Labour had to use the Parliament Act to get it through. The way in which it was written means that the law is imprecise and unenforcable, something which would not have happened in the old house.

Nazi Germany is a prime example of what can happen when power is placed into peoples hands without checks.

They had a constitution.. and a far purer form of democracy (proportional representation) than that of the USA or the UK.

Umm, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is it a bad thing that people are no longer involved in governance by birthright?


Hard to understand, isn't it? But you have to remember that British government was almost always based on a hereditary feudal system (Cromwell sorted that out for a while). Therefore, when the current British parlimentary system evolved, it was natural for the 'nobles' to expect and demand a place in governance that befit their birth as they always had it before.

Sort of like when George W won the White House cause his daddy had been Pres :p (just kidding)

Nazi Germany is a prime example of what can happen when power is placed into peoples hands without checks.

of course, the germans had a constitution in place when the nazis rose to power

They had a constitution.. and a far purer form of democracy (proportional representation) than that of the USA or the UK.


Which raises the question, is pure democracy a good thing, no for many reasons, thats why we in America have an electoral college. Many people bitch about the electoral college but they dont understand it. Without the electoral college's candidates would only need to visit large cities to win the presidency, and they would not have to be answerable to more rural area's which make up more of the US (territorialy). Making the President only the President of the United Cities of America, and not the United States. The people in rural communities would have no real representative in the executive branch.

A Democratic Republic (Which America and Britian are) also help cut down on this especially by being bi-cameral (The US more so then Britian, from my understanding of the British government.). The checks and balances established in the constitution also keep any on person or group from becoming too powerful. Also because our military swears to protect the Constitution which is the law of the land and not any one person is also a big helper, and because no law can override the Constitution (in theory). And because we must have a 2/3rds majority vote in congress to pass an ammendment we know that if the constitution is changed or more is added to it, it is supported by the majority. THe constitution is a living, changing document.

So no-one's going to try and beat hereditary peers with a big stick?

I think it depends on the country. The unwritten constitution has served Britain fine so far. We've been given political freedoms and civil liberties greater than most countries with constitutions, and our rights and responsibilities have usually been sensibley balanced. In fact, it's mostly been with laws such as the European Convention of Human Rights that a victim culture has appeared in this country and people just whine when they can't get everything their own way.

But an unwritten constitution wouldn't be suitable for the US. The US is only a young nation, and an unwritten constitution is the sort of thing that takes a long time to develop through the use of agreements with the monarch, common law, conventions, ect. Also, if a leader becomes absolutist and tyrannical, which has often been the case in many nations in continental Europe, then it's necessary to use a written constitution to clarify the workings of government and the citizen's rights after any revolution.

I'm surprised at the assumption - and statements - that several posters have made that 'Britain doesn't have a written constitution'.

Yes, we do!

It's just not grouped together conveniently into one document like the US constitution is, but seperated out into its component laws and acts. Worryingly, our constitution also lacks special protection, and is able to be altered like any other law - the dreadful mess Blair's made of it (abolition of most of the house of lords without replacing it with anything more then appointees for life!, devolution debacles) are a case in point, but so are our relations with the EU - massive changes (whether you approve of them or not) to the constitution , all changed as easily as any bylaw regarding noise levels in the greenbelt.

Our constitution needs greater protection, and so it would have been helpful for it to have been written down. I would, however, distrust most attempts to artificially 'create' one now. Our big thing was 'it's easy to change the constituation radically, but who would ever want to do that?' - so it was, effectively, a non-issue. Now that it has been pissed about with, I think we can see the dangers of this complacent reliance on the inherent conservatism of the political class. I don't know what the best solution is now; we need a learned, experienced, and apolitical group to write one for us, I think, but where do you find one of those that people trust?

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing
All but three clauses of Magna Carta have long since been repealed!

Is a written constitution needed?

Beats passing it down from generation to generation via storytellers.

Hey, y'all know what the opposite of a constitution is right? ;)

Hey, y'all know what the opposite of a constitution is right? ;)

Hooray!! :D

Hey, y'all know what the opposite of a constitution is right? ;)
And we know what the opposite of progress is, too.

Well whats it for? I know a lot of Americans hold it dear but I find it hard to fathom why? I know its a barrier to certain bits of leglislation with some laws being deemed unconstitutional but if congress make laws then surley they should hold soverignty over a historical document. Consider it was written at a time when slavery was considered acceptable, in a hundred years time what happens if some aspect is deemed backwards, will more amendments be written? Remember that the Weimer republic's constition couldn't stop Hitler.To me the whole thing seems unnessary. Thoughts?

America lacks a state church, so we use the Constitution instead. It's sort of like our bible. There's stuff in it that is no longer relevant, but it's still a good idea to take a look at it now and then to get a sense of our national philosophy, or at least what it's supposed to be. And there are a bunch of people who insist that it is an eternally perfect sacred document that must be interpreted literally and never changed. There was one fellow on this very board who even said that the Constitution has never been amended, only the Bill of Rights had been amended.

It's also farily important for the US because it's run by morally bankrupt politicians ruling a population of gullible ignorant voters with no sense of history. If we've got poeple who can say, on the political talkshows, with no fear of contradiction, "America was founded as a country to provide religious freedom," then it's pretty clear that if the Constitution wasn't written down then by now we'd have Pat Robertson as our Patriarch and Emperor.

That's why our government is so anti-intellectual. It will take a long time, but 10 years ago people thought that the right-wing was nuts for trying to overturn the millionaires' only estate tax. It took them a while, but they eventually made people stupid enough that they thought that this tax applied to everyone. Another 30 years or so and enough people will think that reading is for those Madison avenue wine-and-cheese, cafe-au-lait, types that people in "the Heartland" will think that Snoopy was our first president and that God wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Hey, y'all know what the opposite of a constitution is right? ;)

Yes. An entity.

and they would not have to be answerable to more rural area's which make up more of the US (territorialy).

ah, so now we're letting mile markers vote. that explains a few things...

The people in rural communities would have no real representative in the executive branch.

they don't anyway. we've long since passed the point where rural residents make any sort of an impact. pretty much every state is dominated by it's urban population. we're at 80% of the population living in urban areas now, with almost all of the rest living just outside of them.

Yes, a written Constituion is needed, both for the U.S., or for a form of direct democracy (no, I'm not saying they're both the same thing).
.
The great thing about hereditary peers was that because they owed their seat in Parliament to no-one, they were free to vote and act with their consciences, Why is this a good thing? Do you actually trust most people's consciences, especially people with power who have done nothing to earn it?

Yes, a written Constituion is needed, both for the U.S., or for a form of direct democracy (no, I'm not saying they're both the same thing).
.
Why is this a good thing? Do you actually trust most people's consciences, especially people with power who have done nothing to earn it?

As far as I can see it's a similar idea to the supreme court: they didn't have to earn power, but they also aren't burdened by having to earn it now. They're wealthy, but they're enough of a protected species that their wealth is very unlikely to come under threat, so they're less likely to have to vote for it.

As far as I can see it's a similar idea to the supreme court: they didn't have to earn power, but they also aren't burdened by having to earn it now. They're wealthy, but they're enough of a protected species that their wealth is very unlikely to come under threat, so they're less likely to have to vote for it.
I dunno about that, supreme court members have to be qualified and be approved by Congress, the House of Lords is appointed by birthright, qualification isn't necessarily going to be an issue.

I dunno about that, supreme court members have to be qualified and be approved by Congress, the House of Lords is appointed by birthright, qualification isn't necessarily going to be an issue.

A majority of the HoL had a right to sit by birthright - technically! In practise, only a small minority were sufficently interested/motivated/chose to sit at all regularly - realistically, they did govern largely by conscience for the past 60 years or so. It sounds so strange, but the deal was that few hereditory peers voted, and those that did were older, and generally had experience in the field of xyz, normally relevant to whatever the matter under discussion was.

The majority of the _sitting_ HoL, those who turned up to vote, were life peers - i.e. members created by Prime Ministers. These were political appointees, rewards to business/arts/science people, even a recognition of merit for the job; the same reasons members are appointed to the Supreme Court. Again, touchingly trusting system, but it worked, by and large - culture of conscience voting, combined with a weaker party structure than the HoCommons.

The minorty of the HoL were the Law Lords and the Lords Spiritual - the heads of the judiciary (HoL being the highest court of appeal, with the Law Lords dealing with legal cases) and the most important bishops of the church of England.

Less than ideal theoretical structure as a second chamber, even though its duties were almost entirely to do with oversight, and in any case could only delay a bill (though this was important, particularly towards the end of a parliament, when a general election was coming up). But as a conservative brake on a more radical House of Commons, it worked. Its members were mostly there by experience and merit.

I'd have replaced it by an elected second chamber. Tony Blair just made it easier for a serving PM to pack it with life peers and so 'appoint' a legislature. What a waste of time...

Elgesh']A majority of the HoL had a right to sit by birthright - technically! In practise, only a small minority were sufficently interested/motivated/chose to sit at all regularly - realistically, they did govern largely by conscience for the past 60 years or so. It sounds so strange, but the deal was that few hereditory peers voted, and those that did were older, and generally had experience in the field of xyz, normally relevant to whatever the matter under discussion was.Granted, it is entirely possible, and more than likely that someone would govern well based upon their conscience, but the possibility that they would not is still there. Conscience is nice, but if you can live with making a bad decision, it isn't that much of a motivation to make the right decision.

Granted, it is entirely possible, and more than likely that someone would govern well based upon their conscience, but the possibility that they would not is still there. Conscience is nice, but if you can live with making a bad decision, it isn't that much of a motivation to make the right decision.

I don't know what to tell you. For anyone interested in an active political career, with the ability to actually have an influence on the UK, they'd fight for election to the HoC. The HoL, with its limited powers and totally different culture, was (and to a degree, I still think is) much harder to screw around with than it's conscience + trust 'checks and balances' appeared.

It's just the system that grew up in the UK, organically evolved, as it were! If it didn't work, if bad decisions habitually were made, it would not have survived.

That said, it's a terrible system to _start_, or to take as a model. At the end of the Empire, when independent states were being set up out of the conquered territories, they actually tried to start local HoLs as part of the system of government! Took _no_ account of the realities on the ground, the history, the culture, or the aspirations of the new states. Of course, it failed miserably. No, you want a strictly defined revising chamber, with set powers and limitations in writing, a written constituation. That would have been the trick, and could still help in the UK if we had a group we could trust to write one anymore.

Why is this a good thing? Do you actually trust most people's consciences, especially people with power who have done nothing to earn it?The point was that the hereditary peers had no political allegiance (at least on paper). I agree that it is certainly dubious as to whether they would have voted for issue x based on whether it served the country's best interests as opposed to their own and thus in theory I supported the scraping of hereditary peers; however, in reality the House of Lords is now full of political appointees and, ergo (in all probability), political allegiances. Many are members of parties and are thus subject to party whipping. While there remain a large number that are not officially partisan, in reality the nature of a lot of their appointments could make their decisions political. Thus it is possible that, over time, the supposed function of the Lords to scruntise legislation and government decisions could be eroded and it could simply become an extension of the Commons, in all but name.

The point was that the hereditary peers had no political allegiance (at least on paper). I agree that it is certainly dubious as to whether they would have voted for issue x based on whether it served the country's best interests as opposed to their own and thus in theory I supported the scraping of hereditary peers; however, in reality the House of Lords is now full of political appointees and, ergo (in all probability), political allegiances. Many are members of parties and are thus subject to party whipping. While there remain a large number that are not officially partisan, in reality the nature of a lot of their appointments could make their decisions political. Thus it is possible that, over time, the supposed function of the Lords to scruntise legislation and government decisions could be eroded and it could simply become an extension of the Commons, in all but name.

Labour's reforms of the Lords have been unprincipled, self-motivated and damaging. Although I could understand why they would want to abolish hereditary peerage as part of the class war, the fact that they left 92 shows that their actions were not taken on a basis of principle. Instead, it appears that they wanted to weaken the HoL to increase their control over government, which was already strong thanks to their overwhelming majority. The fact that several individuals who have made huge donations to Labour have been promoted to the Cabinet gives the Lords a bad name.

As far as I can tell it's their equivalent to a Constitution. Both serve to slow down processes and give the past a greater say.

I get that, but rulership by birthright? I dunno, maybe I've just got too much American in me, but I'm shocked they even have a figurehead monarch. To give someone a seat in your government purely based on their lineage seems perverse to me.

Prove it!

The great thing about hereditary peers was that because they owed their seat in Parliament to no-one, they were free to vote and act with their consciences, rather than being forced to become mere delegates of political parties as MPs/Congressmen often are. Although you could argue that their views are irrelevant because they have no democratic legitimacy, I think that the way in which they improved the quality of legislation and prevented certain howlers (like the Hunting Act*) being passed into law more than redeems them.

<snip>

It may sound archaic and nonsensical to most Americans, but this system worked remarkably well, and has saved us from the excesses of FPTP democracy.


So, basically, a bunch of inbred blue bloods whose ancestors were savvy, savage, or servile enough to find their way into power act as the great check against irrational legislation proposed by representatives of the people? Setting aside how vile an idea it is that there would be more power explicitly granted to the upperclasses, how is this in any way better than a written constitution?

Hard to understand, isn't it? But you have to remember that British government was almost always based on a hereditary feudal system (Cromwell sorted that out for a while). Therefore, when the current British parlimentary system evolved, it was natural for the 'nobles' to expect and demand a place in governance that befit their birth as they always had it before.

I can understand how they'd make that demand, I just can't wrap my head around any response that didn't end with nobles either executed or exiled. Say what you want about the afermath of the French revolution, but at least they knew how to deal royalty.

As far as I can see it's a similar idea to the supreme court: they didn't have to earn power, but they also aren't burdened by having to earn it now. They're wealthy, but they're enough of a protected species that their wealth is very unlikely to come under threat, so they're less likely to have to vote for it.

The supreme court is a different story. First and foremost all justices need to be appointed by an elected official (the president) and confirmed by congress. They earn their power by being respected members of their profession and by being great minds, you simply do not rise to the supreme court if you are anything less than a luminary (just look at Harriet Miers). Even if you get an appointment, if congress doesn't think you have earned your place, or if you are too extreme, you can be rejected (look at Robert Bork). That vetting process is far superior to birthright. Once someone is on the court, they can be removed through impeachment, though it rarely happens.

I get that, but rulership by birthright? I dunno, maybe I've just got too much American in me, but I'm shocked they even have a figurehead monarch. To give someone a seat in your government purely based on their lineage seems perverse to me.
...


<shrugs> whatever your misgivings as a foreigner with different expectations, the system worked. No massive injustices were done by a chronically imbalanced system in modern politicsbecause the members took it upon themselves not to do injustices; knowing that their continued existence as a part of the political establishment depended on them regulating themselves, guess what happened? They regulated themselves!

Now that, for better or worse (better, potentially, I think), that system has been irrevicobly altered, we've got the opportunity in the UK to
devise a new seconf chamber. The current power (and eventually probity) vaccuum can't be allowed to continue, we need a real change, not this awkward halfway house. The threat that always hung over the HoL - the Commons can disband you - has been carried out, but only half of the HoL's been removed. With the crippling of the old one, give us a new transparent revising chamber, and a written (collated, effectively, as we already have a written constitution as I said earlier) constitution!

Instead, it appears that they wanted to weaken the HoL to increase their control over government, which was already strong thanks to their overwhelming majority. The fact that several individuals who have made huge donations to Labour have been promoted to the Cabinet gives the Lords a bad name.Yes, exactly.

When Britians form of constitution is better;

Firstly its much more flexable. During ww2 we could avoid having an election and in major crisis we can act quickly while the US as the best example has to take a long time over its measures. Even when the US knew prohebition had failed and needed to be changed because of its entrenched constitiution it went on for many years longer than it needed to.

We're not currently in the messed up situation Americas supreme court is. Where some unelected judges (the supreme court) could in theory and might well make abortion acceptably illigal in a precident case.

It's more trouble than its worth to entrech a consitution since none of the three main parties would actually agree on what Blairs done with devolution so the expence to try and write something that no one likes is stupid...

Over all I'm happy not being stuck with old outdated laws like the right to bear arms and like in a day when we can actually change laws that suck rather than only making 27 or so changes in 200 + years. Just my 2 cents I guess.

Keep in mind that most laws that directly effect the people are state laws and state Constitutions are much easier to change. We amended ours in '04 by a ballot vote. However, this system isn't always a good thing, as our vote here in Michigan showed, when a constitutional ban on gay marriage was introduced.

Also, the "right to bear arms" isn't a "law", its a right. In the American sense a right is not something the government allows you, its something you have as a consequence of existing. The idea behind a written Bill of Rights (which Madison opposed) is to specify what the government can't do. Also, note that most Americans agree with the "right to bear arms" so its not something that would go away immediately, were our system suddenly different.

We can change laws quickly(not all that quickly, the old saying "You're moving slower than Congress" exists for a reason), but its supposed to be difficult to amend the Constitution because its the absolute basis for our form of government, and a decisive change isn't going to occur without widespread, constant support from the people. In most cases, that is. Prohibition was a bit odd and somewhat rammed through, I hear.

Note that they made a constitutional amendment for Prohibition because Congress has no constitutional authority to ban alchohol. Only the states can do that as the constitution reads now.

An uncodified Constitution works well for Britain because its considerably smaller than the US. The US is far too large and diverse to operate without express written rules.

Keep in mind that most laws that directly effect the people are state laws and state Constitutions are much easier to change. We amended ours in '04 by a ballot vote. However, this system isn't always a good thing, as our vote here in Michigan showed, when a constitutional ban on gay marriage was introduced.

Also, the "right to bear arms" isn't a "law", its a right. In the American sense a right is not something the government allows you, its something you have as a consequence of existing. The idea behind a written Bill of Rights (which Madison opposed) is to specify what the government can't do. Also, note that most Americans agree with the "right to bear arms" so its not something that would go away immediately, were our system suddenly different.

We can change laws quickly(not all that quickly, the old saying "You're moving slower than Congress" exists for a reason), but its supposed to be difficult to amend the Constitution because its the absolute basis for our form of government, and a decisive change isn't going to occur without widespread, constant support from the people. In most cases, that is. Prohibition was a bit odd and somewhat rammed through, I hear.

Note that they made a constitutional amendment for Prohibition because Congress has no constitutional authority to ban alchohol. Only the states can do that as the constitution reads now.

An uncodified Constitution works well for Britain because its considerably smaller than the US. The US is far too large and diverse to operate without express written rules.

Well writen. And, from what I can tell, entirely acurrate. The difference between a 'right' and a 'law' is of particular importance to the discussion at hand (or rather, what the discussion was supposed to be before it mutate into a general discussion about the UK's House system).

The great thing about hereditary peers was that because they owed their seat in Parliament to no-one, they were free to vote and act with their consciences, rather than
... what the people want? yeah that sounds pretty bad. politicians should feel that they owe their seat to the people, that way they remember that they are there to serve us. That encourages them to pass legislation that the people want, or else they go bye-bye.

Although you could argue that their views are irrelevant because they have no democratic legitimacy,

ok. here goes.

I think that the way in which they improved the quality of legislation and prevented certain howlers (like the Hunting Act*) being passed into law more than redeems them.

But, if i understood that situation correctly, weren't a lot of people really upset by that legislation? in the good ol' US of A, that could translate into not being a legislator for much longer.

the Common has been able to override reactionary old men in the Lords, without creating a constitutional crisis.

the reactionary old men shouldn't be in the gov. if that's not what the people want.

It may sound archaic and nonsensical to most Americans,

we finally agree.

but if congress make laws then surley they should hold soverignty over a historical document.

Also, this is another thing that is very different about our system. In Britain Parliament is sovereign (from what I gather there is some debate on this, but it seems to be true in essence) but in the United States Congress is not. Congress merely represents the sovereign peoples of the various states. Only the approval of these sovereign peoples can change a constitution. Within a single state its much easier, but on the Federal level its a bit harder, mainly to prevent one state from stopping the amendment process.

The amendment process is a concession to practicality, as in theory you can't force a sovereign people to accept a law without their consent. This is justified by when a state accepts the US Constitution they agree in advance to consent to any amendment that makes it through the amendment process.

During ww2 we could avoid having an election

yeah!! who needs elections anyway?!!

They're always getting in the way of y'know, dictatorship!!


We're not currently in the messed up situation Americas supreme court is.

which is what, precisely?

Where some unelected judges (the supreme court) could in theory and might well make abortion acceptably illigal in a precident case.



first of all, judges must be confirmed by people who HAVE been elected by the people (Senate). Second, this seems less like a messed up situation than you personally havinga different view on an issue

Over all I'm happy not being stuck with old outdated laws like the right to bear arms and like in a day when we can actually change laws that suck rather than only making 27 or so changes in 200 + years. Just my 2 cents I guess.

that's a right, not an "outdated law" and it's near and dear to many ameircans.

also, 27 changes is all taht was needed

ah, so now we're letting mile markers vote. that explains a few things...



they don't anyway. we've long since passed the point where rural residents make any sort of an impact. pretty much every state is dominated by it's urban population. we're at 80% of the population living in urban areas now, with almost all of the rest living just outside of them.


Actually your wrong on the second point. If you look at any county vote map of the US for the 2000 and 2004 elections you would see that Bush easily won probably 90% of the rural area's which also make up probably around 90% of actual land in America. (Those aren't actual percentages listed anywhere thats my estimate but if you look at those maps the amount of area is overwhelming.)

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.

We have an uncodified, ever evolving constitution.

Actually your wrong on the second point. If you look at any county vote map of the US for the 2000 and 2004 elections you would see that Bush easily won probably 90% of the rural area's which also make up probably around 90% of actual land in America. (Those aren't actual percentages listed anywhere thats my estimate but if you look at those maps the amount of area is overwhelming.)

now look up the populations of those counties.

we can use north dakota as an example. it has a population of 635,000 or so. of that approximately 110,000 like in fargo and west fargo. an additional 76,000 live in bismarck and it's immediate surroundings. and then you've got 50,000 in grand forks, and another 45,000ish in minot. that's just a little shy of half the entire population of the state located in 4 metro or micropolitan areas which take up an insignificant amount of geographical space (the population density for fargo is 100 times that for the state as a whole) .

when we expand out to the other micropolitan areas and urban clusters, we quickly wind up with less than half of the population living in rural areas. and that's in a particularly rural state. the trend there, like everywhere else for the past century, is towards urbanization (in north dakota's case, a large part of that is towards the cities in other states). wyoming and idaho each have 65%+ of their populations living in urban areas. the major rural hold-outs that i know of are maine and vermont.

mile markers don't count when it comes to voting.

It's very essential because it's a written code of laws. Since it's written some president can't show up and change everything. it's written so we won't forget what our rights are.

It's very essential because it's a written code of laws. Since it's written some president can't show up and change everything. it's written so we won't forget what our rights are.

So without a codified constitution you don't have rights?

So without a codified constitution you don't have rights?
You don't have formal recognition of those rights that you can easily point to in a crisis such as a court case :)

Elgesh']You don't have formal recognition of those rights that you can easily point to in a crisis such as a court case :)

We don't have a codified constitution yet we have a fair judicial system

I don't know if anybody else has pointed it out, but the UK does have a constitution. It's statutes, precedence, convention etc., it just isn't codified (which isn't to say that it's not written, most, or at least much, of it is)

We don't have a codified constitution yet we have a fair judicial system

That's very true; we never needed one in the past, it was based on conventions, and a culture grew up that respected and played by the 'unwritten rules' of those conventions.

I would argue that elements of that culture, that play by the conventions, are changing, and so are our needs as a state; I think a codified constituation would really help if we could get one.

Elgesh']That's very true; we never needed one in the past, it was based on conventions, and a culture grew up that respected and played by the 'unwritten rules' of those conventions.

I would argue that elements of that culture, that play by the conventions, are changing, and so are our needs as a state; I think a codified constituation would really help if we could get one.

Which is why we don't a set of rules cast in stone as it may hinder future changes to our culture. The law still respects and adhere's to those rules so a codified constitution seems unneccesary to me

Which is why we don't a set of rules cast in stone as it may hinder future changes to our culture. The law still respects and adhere's to those rules so a codified constitution seems unneccesary to me

It's rather like Prussia in the late 18th C., I think. They were the state that _typified_ the ideals of the enlightenment, but come the revolutionary age they were woefully unable to cope.

So it is with us in the UK now. The pressures on us have ended the protection a 'conventions' based constitution affords - we need written protection.

Not changing now in the hopes that the problems will go away by themselves over the next 500 years is a woefully complacent suggestion!:D

Elgesh']

So it is with us in the UK now. The pressures on us have ended the protection a 'conventions' based constitution affords - we need written protection.


And what are these "pressures"?

I voted "Yes (it's needed) but its not vital" because I like contradictions.

The primary role of the Constitution is to define the powers a government has and more importantly, to define the powers a government doesn't have.

It was written under the (correct) premise that the greatest potential threat to a group of people is their own government.

But at the same time, if you have a judicial system such as the supreme court which is subject to political interference and intimidation - as with the bull crap about 'appointment of [politically leaning judges to satisfy tree huggers or red necks]' - the fact remains that a constitution is as only as good as the institutions that uphold it, and without the independence of those institutions, you may as well throw out the whole constitution.

China and Iraq both have supreme courts and both have freedom of speech in their constitutions, but we all know in China, that isn't the case, its freedom of speech with limitations; same with the US, it isn't freedom of speech, its freedom of speech in only these areas [listed areas].

And what are these "pressures"?
Globalisation, distributing political power upwards to the EU and downwards to the devolved parliaments of Scotland, NI and Wales, immigration and the different cultural expectations they bring and develop, the change in the way modern democracies are 'allowed', as it were, to exploit other countries (no more empires/wars to annex territory/resources) are the ones I can most easily explain. I'd add that there's been a radical change in the way we deal with and interact with authority figures in the last 50-odd years, changes that adversely effect the old 'conventions' as a check on how our politicians govern us; taken all together, I'd say we need a different way to protect our rights and freedoms in the future.

Interestingly, the US, with their written constituation, has coped quite well with changing pressures through recent years, including but not limited to shifting power up and down (between state and federal rights), immigration and the diffrences in culture they bring to the table, and they never really had an 'old-fashioned' style of imperial exploitation to anything like the extent we and other countries did, only the current economic one (and they seem to do rather well by it...). In terms of globalisation, it's usually American or American-style companies that _go_ global... :D

edit: I guess it might be worth pointing out that none of these 'pressures' are _bad_, only that they _are_, and that they require a response

I support having a constitution. On the other hand, Israel has survived WITHOUT a written constitution for over 50 years. Then again, Israel has one check against a dictatorship: a populace that has access to military weapons and knows how to use them. If an Israeli government tried to become a dictatorship, the Knesset would come under aerial assault.

There is also the fact that Israel "has to stick together" in order to survive. A divided Israel would have a VERY short lifespan.

In the US, our Constitution is vital. The amendment system lets us update the Constitution as need be, and Congress is ultimately answerable to the people. After all, who voted them into office?

Oh, and that thing about how the US MUST have elections every four years? That's a good thing. It prevents a would-be dictator from "delaying" elections indefinitely.

When Britians form of constitution is better;

Firstly its much more flexable. During ww2 we could avoid having an election and in major crisis we can act quickly while the US as the best example has to take a long time over its measures. Even when the US knew prohebition had failed and needed to be changed because of its entrenched constitiution it went on for many years longer than it needed to.

We're not currently in the messed up situation Americas supreme court is. Where some unelected judges (the supreme court) could in theory and might well make abortion acceptably illigal in a precident case.

In both cases you are talking about strengths. To be clear, the constitution is designed to be very difficult to change. It is designed for force lawmakers to have broad support and lots of time to think before they do anything that would interfere with basic liberties, it is supposed to take a long time for the US to do anything, specifically because our founders felt that the role of the federal government was a limited one. The US moved slowly in WWII because we had no reason to move quickly. We had not been attacked, we were not in any alliances, and our mainland wasn't under any kind of threat. WWII was Europe's problem, mainly caused by the fact that an American president had interfered where he didn't belong in WWI. When the US was attacked, we were able to move quickly. It wasn't a constitutional thing, it was a not our damned buinsess thing.

Prohibition was an unfortunate case, it is the only time our constitution has been edited badly. 200 years and we only have one mistake, a mistake that by it's very existance forces us to consider all new amendments even more carefully.

As for abortion, your assertion confuses me. A court COULD make abortion illegal, though it is unlikely. After all, courts interpret the law and even with a fairly conservative crop of justices abortion hasn't really been seriously challenged in quite awhile. Still, I must wonder, what prevents a conservative religious party from making abortion illegal in England? You seem to argue that the advantage of the english system is that it allows lawmakers to move swiftly, what stands in the way of a swift move against abortion? Considering the way England has treated habeas corpus and privacy issues over the past few years I doubt there is much of anything that is off-limits to your government. (Yes, we have the same problems over here with Bush, but there is a pretty big constitutional fight over it right now which has a good chance of setting a precedent against the President's authority. Hell, ol Dubya might just end up in the same seat as Clinton and Nixon if the Democrats grow a spine.)

The amendment process is a concession to practicality, as in theory you can't force a sovereign people to accept a law without their consent. This is justified by when a state accepts the US Constitution they agree in advance to consent to any amendment that makes it through the amendment process.

Even then the state legislatures need to give their consent.

Actually your wrong on the second point. If you look at any county vote map of the US for the 2000 and 2004 elections you would see that Bush easily won probably 90% of the rural area's which also make up probably around 90% of actual land in America. (Those aren't actual percentages listed anywhere thats my estimate but if you look at those maps the amount of area is overwhelming.)

But he only won a sliver over half the popular vote. Land doesn't matter in the US, only individuals. The presidency shouldn't hinge on the feelings of those who sit on 500 acres, it should hinge only on the number of individuals who actually support that president. That is why the electoral college is an abomination. Not that it is likely to go away, the electoral college guarantees extra political influence to rural peoples and the south.

We don't have a codified constitution yet we have a fair judicial system

As a British citizen (or is it subject? I always forget if you ever got around to changing the title of commoners) how long can you be held without charge on suspicion of terrorism?

As a British citizen (or is it subject? I always forget if you ever got around to changing the title of commoners) how long can you be held without charge on suspicion of terrorism?

...'never ask a question you don't know the answer to'...

Well, I feel like I'm walking into something (:p) But I think it's about 28 days, isn't it? There was a big stushie about making it 72 days, and I think it was compromised to around 28...

As for abortion, your assertion confuses me. A court COULD make abortion illegal, though it is unlikely. After all, courts interpret the law and even with a fairly conservative crop of justices abortion hasn't really been seriously challenged in quite awhile. Still, I must wonder, what prevents a conservative religious party from making abortion illegal in England? You seem to argue that the advantage of the english system is that it allows lawmakers to move swiftly, what stands in the way of a swift move against abortion?


My point was mostly that in the Supreme Court it’s now 5/4 against abortion so if a state were to make abortion illegal and it worked itself up to the Supreme Court the majority at the moment feel the constitution doesn't defend abortion. Not directly people effectively making law Bush couldn't make.

In England it would still need a vote in parliament and moral stuff like that doesn't come as party policy that often and I couldn't see it not being a free vote. On the mad situation a fanatical religious party got to power, we could easily vote them out and fix the mess quickly.

Ultimately I do think the British parliament has the advantage of being swift and flexible in making changes, while stuff that is wrong or hugely anti liberal (or not in the party manifesto) still has to go through 659 MP's and the Lords can always delay it so the media and public can criticize.

Like the 90 day terrorism bill showed it’s still very difficult to make controversial changes yet at the same time can bring in the human rights act and give banks interest rate powers without the hassle and expense.

In the USA the actions of the government are restricted by the Constitution.

In the UK the actions of the government are (mostly) restricted by Common Sense.

Even then the state legislatures need to give their consent.

Right, because the state governments are the primary agents of the sovereign peoples of their states. However, by agreeing to the Constitution they agree to any amendment that passes through the process, even if that state specifically rejected it before. It doesn't meld well with Locke's theories, but as I said, it's a concession to practicality.


In the USA the actions of the government are restricted by the Constitution.

In the UK the actions of the government are (mostly) restricted by Common Sense.

And I'm glad we have the Constitution, because common sense is sorely lacking in Washington.

edit: I can't spell

Elgesh']...'never ask a question you don't know the answer to'...

Well, I feel like I'm walking into something (:p) But I think it's about 28 days, isn't it? There was a big stushie about making it 72 days, and I think it was compromised to around 28...

Heh, you're not really walking into anything. We have a bit of a problem when it comes to habeas corpus over on this side of the Atlantic too. I asked mainly because the difference in our situations highlights one of the problems with having a constitution that isn;t codified. As I understand it, this law would constitute a precident, would it not? It provides a specific instance in English law when the suspension of habeas corpus is considered acceptable. Presumably, it could be extended in the future (if you've got any questions about that, look at how the RICO statues in the US have been used recently) now that it has worked it's way into the body of English law. With a written constitution, an unconstitutional law is just that. Sure, the people could appeal it, but the courts can explain why it is out of line and then the precident of the law no longer applies (except in the negative). A written constitution makes it harder for knee-jerk reactionary laws to infringe on basic freedoms.

My point was mostly that in the Supreme Court it’s now 5/4 against abortion so if a state were to make abortion illegal and it worked itself up to the Supreme Court the majority at the moment feel the constitution doesn't defend abortion. Not directly people effectively making law Bush couldn't make.

In England it would still need a vote in parliament and moral stuff like that doesn't come as party policy that often and I couldn't see it not being a free vote. On the mad situation a fanatical religious party got to power, we could easily vote them out and fix the mess quickly.

5-4 against? How do you figure? Before Reinquist and O'Connor it was 6-3 in favor. Reinquist was one of the three, so replacing him with Roberts means the tally remains the same. Alito (if he is confirmed, and depending the specifics of the abortion issue that comes up) would bring that tally to 5-4. Granted, both Souter and Kennedy have a history of being fence sitters on the issue, but thats hardly something to count on. This is all besides the issue.

Were there a will in America (though there doesn't seemt o be one at the moment) congress could pass a constitutional amendment specifically allowing abortion. From there neither states nor congress nor petty beaureaucrats could do a thing about it. That is the advantage of a written constitution, it makes certain things out of bounds. Under the british system, everything is effectively in the same grey area as abortion currently is in the US, only it is Parliament that has the power to trample liberty instead of the courts.

Right, because the state governments are the primary agents of the sovereign peoples of their states. However, by agreeing to the Constitution they agree to any amendment that passes through the process, even if that state specifically rejected it before. It doesn't meld well with Locke's theories, but as I said, it's a concession to practicality.

Article V, black letter law, three fourths of the state legislatures need to approve any amendment after it moves through both chambers of congress by a two-thrids vote. The states do NOT have to ratify new amendments, and they often don't, the 27th amendment passed both chambers of congress and sat for 199 years before it finally got it's three fourths of the state legislatures and entered the constitution.

We don't have a constition in Britain things seem happy enough. I suppose the Magna Carta is the closest thing but in reality most control on laws is in the hands of the common law, which is in the hands of the people.

The U.S. Constitution is the U.S. equivalent of "Common Law"... It is a social contract, which ties the hands of government. It is not in the sole control of the legislature...

They had a constitution.. and a far purer form of democracy (proportional representation) than that of the USA or the UK.

Their "Constitution" (I use the term loosely), along with their "purer form of democracy" is what allowed Hitler into power... Like most European Constitutions, this Constitution was based within the realm of Civil Law, providing no checks to governmental authority and power, and an open license to the democratic body to vote upon their whim...