> > I'm English.
> >
> I have a question for you. Personally, I think that a constitution with a
> bill of rights, such as the US has, is an advantage in preserving liberty.
> IIRC, if the House of Commons wants to pass a bill outlawing speech
against
> the government, it only has the risk of losing the next election and some
> possible foot dragging by the House of Lords standing in its way.
In a case that extreme the Lords would reject the act. In the last resort
the queen could refuse to sign, which would force a general election.
Even if the act passed the police could fail to enforce it, and juries to
convict.
> In the
> US, it would take a 2/3rds vote by the House and Senate and ratification
by
> 75% of the state legislatures. An example of this is the fact that, even
> though the majority of Americans think burning the flag as part of a
> political protest should be outlawed, it is still protected free speech.
>
> I've read articles written by British citizens that suggests that
tradition
> provides as much of a guarantee in GB as the Constitution does in the US.
> I'm curious to see what your viewpoint is.
>
The only thing that stops the military seizing power in either of
our countries is its tradition of obedience to the civil power. Similarly,
it is only because of tradition that governments act within the law,
obeying court rulings. Laws are only meaningful if governments
are willing to abide by them, and constitutions likewise.
In countries like Pakistan and Zimbabwe the political and military
cultures are lacking these traditions, and consequently democracy.
Tradition is as significant a safeguard in the US as the UK.
In both countries it ensures people play by the rules.
The difference is that the UK's rules aren't written in a single document.
The UK constitution is written down, but it consists of dozens of
significant acts, rules of parliamentary procedure, standing orders and
judicial rulings.
The supreme courts rulings on what the US consitution means may not
technically be part of that constitution but in practice they enjoy the
same 'constitutional' status.
While parliament officially has the power to change this at whim, that
would be every much an unthinkable breach of convention as a president
ordering the US military to ignore a supreme court ruling, at least in
theory.
In practice any change affecting constitutional matters receives extensive
debate. It can't be whipped through. I won't claim this works perfectly,
but what systems does?
> BTW, I'm not trying to start a "US is better than UK" debate here. This
is
> one particular bit of law where I like the setup in the US better. To
show
> at least some balance in my view, I'd like to point out that I think that
> the significantly lower cost of the British system is an advantage for
that
> system. IMHO, the US has far too many lawyers per capita and spends far
too
> much money on fighting in the courts.
Flexibility is both the great advantage, and the biggest disadvantage of
a unwritten constitition. It can potentially be bent the wrong way by
the unscrupulous, but it can also be more responsive to changing
circumstances. A system without enough flexibility will break.
In the US all the flexibility seems to have gone in the legal interpretation
of the original text, in which can be discovered, rights which may not
have been envisaged by its writers. This could be seen as bypassing
the legislature, a questionable manoeuvre.
The UK's constitution may not actually be more flexible, but its
flexibility is in the legislature. Rather than obliging judges to
use flexible interpretations of the law, we change it. Unfortunately,
this means trusting the legislature, which is not a problem free
approach.
--
Robert
