2007-07-17 02:08:08 · 4 answers · asked by Kho J 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The Westminster system of responsible government of checks and balances seems to have worked very well so far. I think the parliamentary system of checks and balances has worked alot better than the U.S style of government, in which places alot more focus on the role of the President as the head of government.
Having said that, i think that a constitution is needed in all cases to prevent abuses from happening - a document that sets out the clear role of the government and its responsibilities to the people.
2007-07-17 02:15:11 · answer #1 · answered by Big B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, with the possible exception of USA and Eire governments will either ignore it or try to find a way around it. This is where our creaking impracticable stupid system wins. It creaks and amends itself as time goes on. Most of us have a fairly good idea of what it right and wrong. We like to call lawyers rude names ( it is fun ) but it is through the Courts and lawyers that we hold on to our liberties.We can always fight through the Courts and Parliament A constitution in fact limits them. A constitution is almost written in stone. Try to alter it formally and see what happens. Ours gradually evolves. Not without fault or error but by and large it gets there.
2007-07-17 10:17:13 · answer #2 · answered by Scouse 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely.
2007-07-17 09:10:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why, the government will just ignore it like all the others do!
2007-07-17 09:44:12 · answer #4 · answered by samhillesq 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋