You’re missing the point. The constitution is given a lofty status above everything. The obvious example of where this is manifest is in gun control. The anti-gun-control advocates argue that there is a constitutional right to have assault weapons. The gun-control advocates now spend their efforts on arguing on constitutional grounds what was actually meant when the constitution was written, as though that’s relevant to the discussion.
It’s used just as much to enforce a bad status quo as a good one. It’s not clear to me that this is demonstrably better than having a rapid turnover of laws in the hope that the general tendency is towards improvement (which I would argue, despite recent notable set backs in a few areas, is the case in the UK).
It may be cultural (or lack of cultural understanding) as well as disproportionate reporting of problems, but I have a much greater fear of stepping out of line when I’m in the US than I ever do in the UK.
One of the few benefits of an “unwritten constitution” is that it prompts one to think about what is right and wrong, versus blindly deferring to rules every time.
Personally I’m glad my freedom of speech is guaranteed in written documents that EVERY-FUCKING-ONEMust follow unless they have a reason not to, according to the supreme court.
In the British situation literally everything is up for grabs. and since there’s no constitution you can have all your rights stripped by high ranking bureaucrats.
I hope you can forgive yourselves for not protecting yourselves in the law.
Constitutions are an attempt to prevent the corrupt people in the government from taking advantage of the weak. And while these nauseating breaches still happen in the US, the more direct ones are still illegal forever (as long as the constitution exists) can you say that much for your own country?
They called it that because the word constitution means a body of laws or principals, agreed upon, by which a state (or other) can be governed. It is a Latin word that has been used by British organisations/societies/business’ and governments as far back as a unified Britain existed.
But the whole point about corruption is that it doesn’t respect the rules, be they codified or cultural. By having a fixation on a document, the bigger picture gets missed.
I suppose I think (in practice) the law reflects the opinions of those in power and you’re suggesting those in power reflect the law. The problem with your position is that it’s demonstrably not true - the powerful do what they want almost regardless of the law. I suggest a pragmatic position which holds that the best legal position should be sought all the time should be the way things work. I just don’t see how that can occur when you have a rigid document written, in the most part, hundreds of years ago.
My argument exactly. I’d rather have codified rules that can condemn the corrupt sooner or later. The other option is to give the corrupt the power to make their actions legal at the highest level.
Since the people can’t decide directly that the actions are illegal and need to be stopped and retribution granted (due to the democratic republic form of government) the highest form of law takes over.
At this point I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. Whether it’s better to give the lawmakers the ability to make themselves above the law, or to involve literally every citizen in the process of stopping the corruption. Or probably we’re not arguing about that at all.
It’s an interesting discussion about which I don’t claim to have the answer. I do think however that having a written constitution is not clearly better than a dynamic, changeable “unwritten” one.
If the US had even a semi-sane political scene then pointing to its processes would carry far more weight. I don’t believe the problems of a state can be in any way reduced to the presence or absence of a single legal document.
Yes, that’s true. And in the light of day I can see that I’ve been misinterpreting your argument.
I agree that we can’t empirically claim having a constitution is better in all cases, but my gut feeling is that it’s an important set of law to have. Which means very little, but I guess that’s why we talk things over.
Theoretically, at least, what is right doesn’t actually change often enough to warrant frequent amendment. And that fits within your own argument, unless you intended to say that what is ‘right’ is whatever you think right now but you might change your mind tomorrow? Because, so far, the only ‘reason’ you’ve offered is that you don’t happen to like the way the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted. So, I would suggest that, as long as you want to be the one who decides what’s right for everybody else, it’s incumbent upon you to get rich and go into politics. It’s not a written law, but that’s pretty much where we keep people who think your way…(unwritten corollary - it’s only corrupt when somebody else does it).
And regardless, it’s official. The London Police bite. At least here, they only suck sometimes…
Most of the US constitution is fine - arguably 2nd amendment is a trouble given where gun technology has gone since the 1700’s. It’s like alcohol and tobacco - things we might not legalise if they were developed today for the first time, whose existence we’ve inherited
I was wondering the same thing. But in reading about Operation Kratos, it doesn’t really seem to matter. They could take a dump in the middle of your Christmas dinner spread, and there would be no real consequences to the officer who did it.
