Does the UK need a written constitution?

Question

Yes/No? Why/Why not?

Um... hello? I didn't say we needed one. It was just a question... gosh!

Answer 1

have you ever heard of the Magna Carta?

Before you comment or vote, please refer to this link for a basic summary....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

If anything, the western world needs not establish such idea a-new but rather re-affirm and obey said definitional ideas with actual, factual, literal practice.

Its not that the west doesn't have such ideas enshrined in law and in documented ideals, but that the ideas have become talking points to be manipulated and bent rather than simply followed.

The ethical person will question and thus improve on the idea. The in-ethical person will manipulate the idea when and only when it serves them either directly or indirectly.

The spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. Ethical people follow the spirit whereas unethical people follow whatever letter is advantageous.

Too much of the latter leads to the question you just asked - wondering if something that already exists needs to be established as if it doesn't exist.

Pretty interesting that the law can be perverted to such an extent that we (the voting populace) mistake rights for gifts and the actual for potential.

Talk about Orwellian Double Speak at its finest.

Yours means mine (act as if you are privileged to use the software you purchased). Slavery means freedom (act as if you are free to follow orders). Etc.,...

Of course only a radical would say that.... The crown said the same thing about the founding fathers did they not? Who was right? The crown or the founding fathers? Whatever answer you give is quite telling...

Care for some Soilent Green? Its good for you. :)

Ptero - depends on how the document is written - who says a Constitution needs be framed in the way you specify?

Also, a Constitution (at least the American one) isn't a list of what can or can't be done by the people, but rather what can and cannot be done by the government. HUGE difference a few words don't emphasis enough.

The framers were wise enough to known that power seeks more power over any other goal. That said, the US Constitution talks more about listing the few things goverment is allowed to do and then says that anything NOT listed is NOT allowed.

On the otherhand, look how well that government has done over the last 25 or so years as far as working FOR the people....

This from an American patriot that understand the word patriot, according to the implied definition in the constitution is to QUESTION the government rather than obey it.

Government and country are not the same thing.... unless you stand to gain something from tying the definitions of the two separate terms into one.

Answer 2

Let's just stick with the unwritten one we've got. A written Constitution ties a nation down and hold it back. One sees this quite often in the USA - such as George W Bush repealing the Law of Habeas Corpus in 2006. He was able to do this because he has a constitutional right as President do act like a Medieval Monarch.

Habeas Corpus Act. 1679. An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas. ...
http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm

The above English law remains firmly in place here in England [UK] - it's removal would be an impossibility without something approaching a civil war. Yet the American people have accepted the withdrawal of the same protection as has been enjoyed by the Brits since the 17th century, without so much as a whimper.

So, in spite of their Written Constitution, the American people are not so tough or well protected as they think and make out.

Time for another Revolution, methinks!

Answer 3

Bostonianinmo, the UK is also a 'Parliamentary Democracy'. The word constitution (or constitutional) just refers to the system or structure of law - not necessarily to an actual document. The UK has a system of written laws, and so is therefore a Constitutional Monarchy.

As mentioned, King John's Magna Carta, can be seen to be effectively the UK's written constitution. It was this document which was the basis of modern democracy, and upon which both the English (and by extension, British) and US systems are based.

The next important step in modern democracy was the Bill of Rights, during the Glorious Revolution in 1689. The bill was signed by King William III and his wife and joint sovereign, Mary II. With it they limited and defined the power of the monarchy. More importantly though, it included the following rights, some of which were duplicated for the US Constitution:

The right to bear arms;
Freedom of speech;
Elections;
Elimination of "cruel and unusual punishment";
No punishment without trial


It could be said that the system in the UK is far more flexible precisely because it doesn't have a single, over-riding base document. In the practical sense, it's a lot more complex of course.

In short, the UK doesn't *need* a 'written constitution' (or it already effectively has one) as it functions quite well without one.

The question *should* it have one is a different matter, and is highly subjective.

[Update: Hello. Presumably you were addressing me. No you didn't say we needed one, but you did *ask* if we needed one - "Does the UK need a written constitution?" I was just answering the question.. gosh!]

Answer 4

No. Because when you have a written constitution, it implies that that constitution is a list of all the rights you have, and if it's not on the list, you might not be able to do it. Without a constitution, there are written laws for things that you can't do, but you can do everything else.

I'm not explaining myself very well, but I'm trying to say that:
constitution = this is what you can do
no constitution = here are some things you can't do, but you can do everything else.

Answer 5

Well, one of the most curios things I noted in my 7 years of living in the UK was that the style of government was referred to as a "Constitutional Monarchy" but there was no Constitution. Very curious...

Answer 6

It's not really necesary - we have a parliamentary system which makes it difficult to sneak anything dodgy through, and failing that the house of Lords, which has no power or vested interest, but can slow up anything dodgy (this is why the house of lords is important, it seems odd having an unelected body as part of a democratic process, but it works as long as people don't start selling peerages)

Answer 7

Yes, absolutely - or the Uk is in danger of eventually falling under the European Constitution... you can't stop that Juggernaut!

Answer 8

No Stephanie! We'll just end up like those bastards across the water in America! It never did them any good - they're the most evil part of the world.

Answer 9

Yes, the constitution defines what limitations are imposed on government so that it can't become too powerful (theoretically). Otherwise, the danger of becoming another Nazi Germany is unchecked.

Answer 10

No! They have a parliamentary system that makes it redundant

America runs on rules set in a different century, silly