Why worship a constitution?

[Beatsong]

In principle I think there's something to be said for having some legal structures determined by something that can't be changed just by a change of government. It's like the separation of legislature and judiciary or any other division of powers: the more you break things up into little parcels subject to different procedures, conventions and overseeing people, the more you guard against abuse of too much power by any one individual or group.

I agree that it's stupid the way it gets worshipped as some kind of absolute truth though. It's just a legal and political document, written by people. it's wierd how the fact that it was written a long time ago seems to make some people think it's somehow more than that.

[Svartalf]

or you might be looking for a high powered, repeating rifle and lots of ammunition... oops, I was thinking of it the American way.

[mistermack]

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....

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present, the President of the United States of America, MISTER GEORGE BUSH !!.
I rest my case.

[MrJonno]

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....

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present, the President of the United States of America, MISTER GEORGE BUSH !!.
I rest my case.

To be honest he was elected due to the lack of balanced media, if you want to know why the UK doesnt get people like him it elected its the BBC + Ofcom not our more sane electorate which contains just as many lunatics as the US. Through not even Rupert Murdoch could get Brits into church

[Coito ergo sum]

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....

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present, the President of the United States of America, MISTER GEORGE BUSH !!.
I rest my case.

Your honor, the defense's case will begin with Exhibit A: Tony Blair.

You blokes elected his lap dog, right? Blair? Your top leader was the "poodle" of our "worst president ever."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Coito ergo sum]

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....

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present, the President of the United States of America, MISTER GEORGE BUSH !!.
I rest my case.

To be honest he was elected due to the lack of balanced media, if you want to know why the UK doesnt get people like him it elected its the BBC + Ofcom not our more sane electorate which contains just as many lunatics as the US. Through not even Rupert Murdoch could get Brits into church

That's not correct. The US media, if anything, leans to the left. Most folks get their news from CBS, ABC and NBC, all of which were staunchly pro-Obama and have been pro Democrat my whole life. Just because Fox News is popular among Christian conservatives does not mean that our "media" is not balanced. While Fox News is the most popular CABLE news source, it is not the most popular NEWS source. The most popular NEWS sources in TV are ABC, CBS and NBC, and the most popular print source is the New York Times (while the Wall Street Journal has a wider circulation, it is a business paper, not as much of a political paper as the New York Times). Moreover, most of the major magazines are liberal and lean Democrat - which includes Time magazine, US News, and Newsweek.

This idea that that there is "fox news" and then everybody else is negligible is just plain wrong, and most of the major media sources have supported Democratic candidates for President for the last 5 decades - since the Nixon-Kennedy election.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Well, the "it can't happen here" theory is certainly one way to approach the subject.

The reality is that there is nothing superior about the British electorate. They are not fundamentally different than, say, the German electorate in the 1920's and 1930's. And, neither is the American electorate fundamentally different. Given the right conditions, any group of humans is ripe for engaging in nastiness.

[mistermack]

Your honor, the defense's case will begin with Exhibit A: Tony Blair.

You blokes elected his lap dog, right? Blair? Your top leader was the "poodle" of our "worst president ever."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

That's so dumb, it's actually worthy of George Bush himself.
Blair did what ANY British pm would have done, in the interests of his country.
The poodle jibe is just the British right-wing press, trying to influence the next election.
And you are obviously dumb enough to buy it.
You aren't helping your own case. Like the rest of your gullible fellow-voters, you buy straight into what the press tell you to think.

You and George Bush. I rest my case. Again.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your honor, the defense's case will begin with Exhibit A: Tony Blair.

You blokes elected his lap dog, right? Blair? Your top leader was the "poodle" of our "worst president ever."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

That's so dumb, it's actually worthy of George Bush himself.
Blair did what ANY British pm would have done, in the interests of his country.
The poodle jibe is just the British right-wing press, trying to influence the next election.
And you are obviously dumb enough to buy it.
You aren't helping your own case. Like the rest of your gullible fellow-voters, you buy straight into what the press tell you to think.

You and George Bush. I rest my case. Again.
.

LOL - settle down, tiger. No need to get upset. We all know that Brits are far smarter and the British electorate is far better than any other - just like how everything you blighters do is far better than what Americans do. Your beer is better, your fries (oh, I mean "chips") are better, your cheese is better, your Chinese take-away is better, your government is better, your television is better, your news is better, your mustard is better - everything. So, of course, it only stands to reason that our leaders are worse too.

[Geoff]

Your honor, the defense's case will begin with Exhibit A: Tony Blair.

You blokes elected his lap dog, right? Blair? Your top leader was the "poodle" of our "worst president ever."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

That's so dumb, it's actually worthy of George Bush himself.
Blair did what ANY British pm would have done, in the interests of his country.
The poodle jibe is just the British right-wing press, trying to influence the next election.
And you are obviously dumb enough to buy it.
You aren't helping your own case. Like the rest of your gullible fellow-voters, you buy straight into what the press tell you to think.

You and George Bush. I rest my case. Again.
.

LOL - settle down, tiger. No need to get upset. We all know that Brits are far smarter and the British electorate is far better than any other - just like how everything you blighters do is far better than what Americans do. Your beer is better, your fries (oh, I mean "chips") are better, your cheese is better, your Chinese take-away is better, your government is better, your television is better, your news is better, your mustard is better - everything. So, of course, it only stands to reason that our leaders are worse too.

At last, reason prevails!

[mistermack]

Your beer is better, your fries (oh, I mean "chips") are better, your cheese is better, your Chinese take-away is better, your government is better, your television is better, your news is better, your mustard is better - everything. So, of course, it only stands to reason that our leaders are worse too.

That's your opinion. I never said any of it.
I drink guinness, make my own chips, like danish blue cheese, yes, your mustard is shit, but so is French, English is the only one worth eating. Chinese is all the same.

Your leaders, I never said that. I said that lunatic extremists stand more chance of getting elected in the US. Clinton was clever, Bush was dumb, Obama is clever, so you are now due an absolute moron. And very possibly a lunatic extremist.
May I present Sarah Palin, Madam President !!

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, the problem probably is that our awful "electorate" is trusted with actually voting for our chief executive. You don't even get to vote for yours. Your betters do it for you.

[mistermack]

Good thing too. Reasons :

1) Our next leadership election will cost probably less than £50
Your next will probably top $3,000,000,000

2) The people who elect our next leader will know exactly who and what they are voting for. They are career politicians who know their stuff and can see through the bullshit.
Many of yours will be voting on who has the best hair.

I don't like our system, there's lots I disagree with. But boy, am I glad we don't have yours.

[Coito ergo sum]

Good thing too. Reasons :

1) Our next leadership election will cost probably less than £50
Your next will probably top $3,000,000,000

It's easy when you don't HAVE leadership election, other than your Parliament members doing your choosing for you.

2) The people who elect our next leader will know exactly who and what they are voting for. They are career politicians who know their stuff and can see through the bullshit.

As I said, leave it to your betters. That's what the aristocracy is for. They know what their doing.

Many of yours will be voting on who has the best hair.

The hope is that such folks won't even bother voting, and given voter turnouts (or, more properly, lack thereof), that is largely true.

I don't like our system, there's lots I disagree with. But boy, am I glad we don't have yours.

The feeling is quite mutual. But, I know, I know, the British system is much better, and our media is biased, but yours isn't.

[mistermack]

2) The people who elect our next leader will know exactly who and what they are voting for. They are career politicians who know their stuff and can see through the bullshit.

As I said, leave it to your betters. That's what the aristocracy is for. They know what their doing.

I can't believe the crap you are coming out with. Nobody mentioned the aristocracy except you.
We elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, because we have better things to do, than research every subject. We EXPECT them to make better decisions than we would, because they have the time and resources, and that's why we pay them.

We employ them. They are not our betters, they are chosen by us to work for us.

The biggest decision of all is to elect a leader, and we expect them to make a wise and informed choice.