Constitution

[catgate]

In a recent outpouring from HM government was included a reference to the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Now, as far as I am aware this country has no Constitution. This must mean that those employed with this dept. are receiving money under false pretences. That having been said I know that this country has a very strong constitution. How else would we put up with Toady B liar for so long without a strong consitution?

[Guest ellas]

yeah they have a very nice website as well http://www.dca.gov.uk/

[andsome]

GET RID OF CHEESY

[Smiffy99]

We actually DO have a constitution, just that as with may other countries it is not actually written down (helps Mr Cheesy when he wants to do something UN-constitutional)

A constitution is no more than a set of "Rules" on how things are to be done. Clubs and societies, companies and even forums have a "constitution" be it written down or unwritten and beased on "understanding" of how things are done.

So, we have a Dept of Constitutional affairs BUT when they can overnight literally reverse nearly 1,000 years of Brittish history and suggest the removal of one of the most senior offices inthe legal profession (Lord Chancellor) one starts to wonder if we should have a written constitution detailing specific means by which any changes should be effected.

[catgate]

Now that, Smiffy99, that is no way to celebrate a successful entry into the law (congrats.). Your "case" almost shoots itself in the foot. If We actually DO have a constitution that is a set of "Rules" and they can overnight literally reverse nearly 1,000 years of Brittish history and suggest the removal of one of the most senior offices inthe legal profession I would suggest, to my learned friend, that we aint got a constitution. Anything which can be changed just like that, be it oral, traditional or written is not in anyones wildest dreams a "constitution". The whole business is symantic tinkering with the word "constitution" (in a similar way to the debasement of "democracy"). Constitute means constitute whether it is written or spoken.

[Smiffy99]

My learned freind makes an interesting point, albeit flawed;

A constitution, being as it is a set of "rules" or more accurately described as "an accepted method of procedure" means that if those rules or that procedure allows a means of affecting change then that "change" will be "Constitutional". An un-written constitution is deemed to be better due to its inherrant flexibility, to me, this is a flaw. As I say, we have had a House of Lords for centuries and a certain govenment decides to get rid of them all in favour of a US style "Supreme Court" (And yet to find a building for it - may I suggest a use may now have been found for the Dome - another disaster). A flexible constitution can mean that almost anything is possible if the elected govenment with a proper majority decides that it wants to change it then who are we to argue? After all, we elected them (democratically) to power!

Hence the reason for Judicial Review and the fact that a "Core" subject for the qualifying law degree is "Public and Constitutional Law" which must be studied by all LLB students.

We do have a constitution, but it could easily be described as willow the wisp!

[catgate]

Smiffy99

"an accepted method of procedure"

Accepted by whom? The more this matter is examined the more the misuse of the word democracy becomes apparent. The House of Lords is a perfect example of the non democracy that exists. It and the House of Commons were never intended to be democratic at their inception, but the myth has been propagated that "We are a Democracy". Unless the "method of procedure" is accepted by the people of the country, and is not just as a plaything for any idiot who happens to hijack the system, then in my book, and, I suspect, in actuallity, we do not have a democratic constitution, however much the incumbent head idiot "pledges". As far as the "Dept of Constitutional affairs" is concerned it is relly the "Department of Conjurational affairs" who's task is to produce magic smoke in order to hide the reality of the monstrous sham that it all is.

[Smiffy99]

Oh dear, what a can of Blairs....sorry, worms this has opened.

I do not wish to get into an argument and greatly respect your views (with which I am mostly in agreement with) but it has to be said we DO have a constitution.....

First things first, lets forget the House of Lords for a second (we will return) and accept the fact that Parliament is "Soverign" in this country, the monarch being merely a figurehead. Yes? Right, Who actually "appoints parliament? - We do, by a democratic process known as voting. Forget also the West Lothian question (which is a total shambles) and the result is that parliament can pass and repeal legislation as it wishes. If we, the public do not like it then we have only ourselves to blame (how many actually voted today I wonder?)

As parliament is able to make and ammend legislation as it wishes there are no "Constitutional guarantees" as such. Any legislation, even membership of the EU can be repealed (European Communities Act 1972). Since parliament can repeal any act whatsover it is impossible for parliamnet to render any act "Unrepealable" and parliament cannot, by virtue of the fact that the courts (under Judicial Review) will always obey its latest commands, destroy or ammend its continuing sovereignty save for some act of revolution such as that when James II was succeeded by William and Mary in 1688 and, accademics would have us beleive, in 1972 when we joined the EU and "allowed" EU law to take precedence over UK legislation (Factortame & Spanish fishing vessels).

The very making of legislation is a "Constitutional" process and providing that parliament does not attempt to destroy itself (we wish?) it is the most important source of constitutional law. Other sources include the common law, custom and conventionswith an increasing amount of European law.

We are almost unique in not having a written consitution (Isreal being another) and the reason for this is simply we have not as yet been defeated in war since 1066 which is a main reason for the imposition of a constitution upon a defeated country giving sovereignty to the victor - the victor will "dictate" (for want of a better word) the means by which that country will be controlled (usually entrenching legislation in the process to ensure its continuing supremacy - something that the UK cannot do as our parliament is already supreme).

So again, a constitution is a way of doing things, a method or means of governing a country or a club or a society or whatever. So long as there are procedures in place, (In this case the democratic right to vote and parliament as supreme power) we have a constitution.

As you say, "I suspect, in actuallity, we do not have a democratic constitution" and that is simply because we as voters choose not to vote! The ultimate power does indeed rest with the people and that, no matter how much you try, cannot be denied. Whoever be the next govenment, Bair, howard, or Kennedy (beer prices to fall!!!) or the Green party, the independance party or god forbid even the BNP it will be down the the simple fact that they have acquired more democratic support than the others.

"The House of Lords is a perfect example of the non democracy that exists" in what way? Here we have a second chamber to consider the decisions of the commons and if necessary, block them. However, by invoking the parliament Act 1911 the commons can disregard even this and who puts the commons into power?

"Unless the "method of procedure" is accepted by the people of the country..." and what else would you propose? That we do away with voting and resort to a dictatorship? The method of procedure that we have in this country (our constitution) is the envy of most other countries. Even in 1946 Japan considered ours a a "model" to be followed but in the end and due to the fact that they wished for the Emporer to remain as a god and to retain the right wing conservative constitution under the Mejji period the USA nore or less wrote theirs for them - and it remains in force to this day.

The bottom line is whatever method or means by which a country is governed that method is by its very definition a "Constitution" after all, the very definition of "Constitution is -

"a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or organization is governed. / historical a decree, ordinance, or law.

and whichever way you look at it, the definition fits the way in which this or any other country is governed and so it will be a constitution!

[andsome]

Sounds about right

[Guest Drovers Dog]

:P

Whilst this is a localised Subject, I feel compelled to point out to our US, Aussie and all ex British Commonwealth Countries something!

Whilst we, the above have Constitutions, binding on the Government of the day,

Britain, has only the Magna Carta, which empowered the Government of the day, to subject the peoples of Britain and ALL Countries, under the control of Britain, to be Ruled at the whim of that Parliment, with few restraints in place, except for the House of Lords, and of course the Ruling Monarch, in this case, the Queen!

To abolish the House of Lords, certainly is possible, but what an act of Treason it would be, to Britain!

For any of us, to change the Constitution, it takes any absolute majority of ALL States, meaning, ALL of the People!

:wub: :D

[andsome]

Although I don't approve of the unelected House of Lords, I would point out that it is now effectively abolished. No longer will unelected peers gain access willy nilly, but large numbers of unelected peers will be appointed by Cheesy.

[expertec]

Although I don't approve of the unelected House of Lords, I would point out that it is now effectively abolished.  No longer will unelected peers gain access willy nilly, but large numbers of unelected peers will be appointed by Cheesy.

eh? :o

[andsome]

Although I don't approve of the unelected House of Lords, I would point out that it is now effectively abolished.  No longer will unelected peers gain access willy nilly, but large numbers of unelected peers will be appointed by Cheesy.

eh? :o

Perfectly true

[Guest Drovers Dog]

:P

Sounds like Democracy at it's BEST!!!!!

The People don't count, just the Government????

Where have we heard that before????

Mr. Hitler had that idea too!!

I wonder where we will Invade next??

:wub: :D

[Guest Drovers Dog]

:P

This is a Topic, very worthy of Debate, seeing as this Forum now is Multicultural, and ALL of us don't want WAR! Can someone move it to Debates?

:wub: :D