Why worship a constitution?

[Coito ergo sum]

Its not a simply majority to pass a law in the UK, its at least 3 votes in the House of Commons and a similar amount in the House of Lords. Its extremely time consuming with plenty of time for review but in the end of the day after review the House of Commons which is the elected chamber can pass anything (which is what it should be)

There are some obvious potential problems with a 2/3 majority too. What if only 60% consistently voted to abolish slavery? We'd still have slavery.

By the same token, with a simple majority what if 51% voted to establish slavery? We'd have it again.

[Svartalf]

it takes only 51% to pass a constitutional amendment?

[Coito ergo sum]

it takes only 51% to pass a constitutional amendment?

No, but the UK doesn't have a written constitution, I've been told, and therefore a simple majority passes any law, including constitutional changes.

[Svartalf]

not sure it works like that... slavery is pretty much a dire violation of habeas corpus, and it would take an act of dog for the brits to come back on that one.

[Coito ergo sum]

not sure it works like that... slavery is pretty much a dire violation of habeas corpus, and it would take an act of dog for the brits to come back on that one.

Not if the Parliament voted for it. Why can't they declare slavery not a violation of habeas corpus?

It seems the ease of changing the constitution, it being as easy as changing the law in general, has been interposed as a virtue.

[Svartalf]

Habeas Corpus is way higher than an act of parliament in the british legal hierarchy.
A breach in it would be a revolution. I'm pretty sure that if parliament tried it, the courts would strike it down.

[Coito ergo sum]

Habeas Corpus is way higher than an act of parliament in the british legal hierarchy.

I agree. Dare I say....enshrined?

A breach in it would be a revolution. I'm pretty sure that if parliament tried it, the courts would strike it down.

On what basis? The Brits here are saying that their system allows for Parliament to change the constitution by mere vote. Habeas corpus is part of the English constitution. I'm not an expert, so I was just going by what I was told.

[Svartalf]

On basis of precedent and it being plain wrong.

The other side of an unwritten constitution in a country dominated by case law is that some traditions are regarded as beyond mere law.
if parliament wanted to overthrow HC and make it stick, they'd have to take exceptional measures and solemnities... then again, maybe the queen would refuse to sign on it. As I said, a revolution, either in the wake of a major cultural change, or in a drive for political upheaval.

[mistermack]

I don't think so. Habeas Corpus is a writ to defend the individual against UNLAWFUL detention. If Parliament has passed a law, even by a slim majority, then applying it is lawful.
The courts can only pronounce on what is lawful, based on laws passed by parliament.

The English system is foggy and unresolved at the extremes of a crisis.
What happens if the Queen won't sign a bill? We don't know.
It works, but it's not all worked out. The principle is, if it's not broke, don't fix it.

( I'm not saying that to defend it, that's just how it is ).

[Coito ergo sum]

On basis of precedent and it being plain wrong.

The other side of an unwritten constitution in a country dominated by case law is that some traditions are regarded as beyond mere law.

I agree, but that idea was poo-poo'd when it comes to the US. We include free speech and freedom of and from religion among those traditions regarded as beyond mere law. We just happen to have a Constitution that's a bit more written out.

[Svartalf]

Well... there's no way I see you brits declaring that making a person's body somebody else's property (say, as a debt slave or indentured servant) would ever be lawful detention.
and your case law has such inertia that I'm not sure an act of parliament is enough to reset things to zero in every case. You've let those turds at whatehall deprive you of some liberties over the years, but I still have hope in strong tradition.

[Svartalf]

On basis of precedent and it being plain wrong.

The other side of an unwritten constitution in a country dominated by case law is that some traditions are regarded as beyond mere law.

I agree, but that idea was poo-poo'd when it comes to the US. We include free speech and freedom of and from religion among those traditions regarded as beyond mere law. We just happen to have a Constitution that's a bit more written out.

which doesn't prevent religious morons to cry like skinned cats when told to remove their cult from the public into the private sphere, or to try and legislate so religions they don't approve of can never even be seen, if not outlawed outright.

[mistermack]

Well... there's no way I see you brits declaring that making a person's body somebody else's property (say, as a debt slave or indentured servant) would ever be lawful detention.
and your case law has such inertia that I'm not sure an act of parliament is enough to reset things to zero in every case. You've let those turds at whatehall deprive you of some liberties over the years, but I still have hope in strong tradition.

The whole English legal system relies on the good sense and moderation of the electorate. If lunatic extremists could get a majority, even a slim one, we would be in the shit.
That's why the US needs a constitution, and Britain doesn't.
Case solved !!

[Coito ergo sum]

Well... there's no way I see you brits declaring that making a person's body somebody else's property (say, as a debt slave or indentured servant) would ever be lawful detention.
and your case law has such inertia that I'm not sure an act of parliament is enough to reset things to zero in every case. You've let those turds at whatehall deprive you of some liberties over the years, but I still have hope in strong tradition.

The whole English legal system relies on the good sense and moderation of the electorate. If lunatic extremists could get a majority, even a slim one, we would be in the shit.
That's why the US needs a constitution, and Britain doesn't.
Case solved !!

Or, it's just because Brits complain as much about what their government does. You live in just about the most surveilled country on Earth, with more cameras filming you every day than anywhere else, and your antiterrorism bill gave your government far more intrusive capabilities under the law than the US Patriot Act did.

But, I'll add "far better electorate," to the list of things that the Brits do better than the Americans. The American electorate is just a watered down, cheap imitation of the real electorate found in Britain....

[MrJonno]

By the same token, with a simple majority what if 51% voted to establish slavery? We'd have it again.

If 51% of the population want a minority to be slaves then there is a far bigger problem than the constitution known as the electorate. Or to put it another way if all my neighbours decided that didnt want an atheist living in their neighbouhood (not very likely in the UK) then I wouldn't be looking for legal protection constitutional or not I would be looking for somewhere else to live