It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Isn't it about time we have a constitution?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Since we're a democratic country, do any of you folk find it odd that we don't have like a bill of rights or something similer? Do we need a bill of rights?




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
It's a hell of a heavy topic MacDonagh.

There are quite a few sites debating the pros and cons, have a look it seems to be covered fairly well.

This one is a neat and well laid out one, but you can go much much deeper on others -
www.idebate.org...

[edit on 22-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Okay, I am going to go with my gut feeling. Let's have a constitution giving us some rights as individuals. One thing that I'd like would be proportional representation in parliament y'know? A fairer system of goveriment where folk are better represented by the party they support. I'd like at least a defence against folk who want to act undemocratically. Y'know, forcing the country into things they don't want. An example...War against Iraq? :/
I don't think many folk were up for that war.
I also find it odd, that we got Iraq to make a constitution, while we lack one. Also, one thing that has been bothering me for a bit. Is it still necessary for the justice court to keep having those wigs? I mean, sure keep the gowns by all means, but I just don't feel like there is a need for them anymore. To me, they look like "Right wing" folk doing liberal laws.
Anyway...get rid of the wigs. Nothing to do with the constitution, but I really dislike them.


TPL

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Just because a government is elected in a different manner doesn't mean that it will automatically follow the will of the people!



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Yeah- most people don't vote for the government that is in power! kinda makes a mockery of "democracy!"

Anyhow, the constitution thing- I looked into this a few years ago because I just had to know!
I wish I didn't- The sad fact is, nobody knows who is in charge anymore... You have parliament, the lords, the crown, the privvy council, The list is endless, and getting all of these together to create a universal bill of rights for us will be impossible.
Although, I do believe that a written constitution is the single biggest failing of successive governments of this country. (Quickly followed by the failure to seperate religion and government!)



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Well, it is a valid point that a government that is voted in, doesn't need to follow the will of the people. I just assume that they should be at least held accountable to broken promises no? To lie and to deceive the public, (or at least the public that vote!) is rather shambolic of a supposed democracy.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
MacDonagh,

Why do we need a constitution?

We (the UK) are not a country.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
The U.K are a collection of countries. I know that. I just find it strange that we don't have a constitution, despite claiming to be a democracy. Are we a democracy if we don't have a constitution? Do you don't think there is any need for a constitution devilwasp?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
I just find it strange that we don't have a constitution, despite claiming to be a democracy.


- Strictly speaking that is not quite true, we do have written 'elements' to our constitution but large parts of it rely on widely understood 'convention' and we do not have it all laid out and written down as a single document.

In any event the two are not synonymous; states can be democracies without a written constitution (as is the case with the UK) and equally they can have a constitution without being a democracy (in the sense we use the term) as was the case with the USSR, for instance.


Are we a democracy if we don't have a constitution?


- Yes, obviously.
Besides, we do have a constitution, just not one that is all written down and set out on a single document.

This goes back to the point about a defined set of rights and all the technical difficulties that definition might give rise to.
That is why some see the British system as superior.


Do you don't think there is any need for a constitution?


- Personally I am quite attracted to the idea but I do not think it automatically 'better'; it would depend very much on what was put in place.

In some respects I think we now get the best of both worlds, we have the flexibility of a (largely) unwritten system along with the written and defined rights from things like the various Acts of Parliament and the European Convention on Human Rights etc etc.


[edit on 26-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
The U.K are a collection of countries. I know that. I just find it strange that we don't have a constitution, despite claiming to be a democracy. Are we a democracy if we don't have a constitution? Do you don't think there is any need for a constitution devilwasp?

But we are not a democracy, never have been but probably will be sooner or later.

We have a queen, not a president.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
But we are not a democracy, never have been but probably will be sooner or later.

We have a queen, not a president.


- Ah but 'democracy' has many meanings DW; the Russian and Chinese communists saw and no doubt still see themselves as the genunine democrats, not us.
We merely 'pack' the hustings with those who act for interests other than those of the people, apparantly.

I do agree with your point about Monarchy though.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Ah but 'democracy' has many meanings DW; the Russian and Chinese communists saw and no doubt still see themselves as the genunine democrats, not us.

Are we really going to go into the "but"'s feild pinkey, cause that could take a while and my pints getting warm lol.


I do agree with your point about Monarchy though.

Yeah, but hey, we are unique at very least we can say that.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
We use a system of legal precedent in this country, that is the envy of the world, why wright down something for it only to be interpreted in a hundred different ways anyway?
The things that need enshrining are done; like The Parliament act, but we dont need one unifying document to tell us what we already know.


Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as it is still developing.
Source

Look at America they have a written constitution and yet they have rafts of ammendmants to it. The way the system works currently is through a system of judicial precedent, which keeps the laws of the land under constant review, testing their viability. This does have its drawbacks, though I think it has worked very well for the past 400 years, and dont see the need to change.

I am not being conservative in this view, I just think, if it isnt broken dont fix it. I disagree with change for the sake of change.



The flexibility of laws is important. If they are too rigid then it is difficult for a judge to interpret them to suit a specific case. If this cannot be done, then a new law would need to be written for every eventuality - this would be incredibly time consuming and it would be difficult for people to know where they stand.



Dan



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
bigdanprice, you forget to mention that precedent is interpreted in a hundred different ways...just like a written constitution.

Law should be there to protect people from harming others, directly or indirectly in their control. A well written constitution I am all for, but it never would be. The problems we have now, would still exist as would the flaws we have now in reality there is no major difference between the two systems except a constitution is era dependent and a lot harder to change then legal precendent. Although both can exist in one system...

You also have one major flaw with how it is done now. Judge's are there to make sure the law is fair [House of Lords Judges [Law Lords]] but the other judges are to enforce law which Parliment creates. They are not elected, which means unelected people are creating law in the United Kingdom which is heavily undemocratic.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
You also have one major flaw with how it is done now. Judge's are there to make sure the law is fair [House of Lords Judges [Law Lords]] but the other judges are to enforce law which Parliment creates. They are not elected, which means unelected people are creating law in the United Kingdom which is heavily undemocratic.

The house of lords is apointed by the queen and cant stop any act for longer than 2 years if its gone through parliment.

We are not a democracy and never have been, as I said , but instead we live under a monarchy.

The advantage of our system is that no matter who controls the government it can still be stopped for 2 years atleast, but the flip side is that we can still get acts through no matter who controls the lords.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
No, Devil Wasp there is a reason as to why I said "Law Lords" after it.

They do not need to stop the law, they can refuse to convict someone.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Hey, if you are needing a Bill of Rights, and maybe even an excellent form of government (united states of America), why not take our U.S. constitution and our Bill of Rights? We don't seem to be using it at this time, and maybe you'll guard over it better than we have.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
No, Devil Wasp there is a reason as to why I said "Law Lords" after it.

So the queen does not pick the people who write her subjects laws?
Hmmm doesnt sound safe to me...


They do not need to stop the law, they can refuse to convict someone.

Yeah and how many times is that going to work?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
The Law Lords refused to up hold the Government's Legislation on the 15th of December 2005. It happens about once every two or three years, where a law Government has passed they refuse to convict on - in turn creating Law and a Precendent.

Also Law Lords do not directly write any legislation, they control law by what they say.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The Law Lords refused to up hold the Government's Legislation on the 15th of December 2005. It happens about once every two or three years, where a law Government has passed they refuse to convict on - in turn creating Law and a Precendent.

Thats the whole point of the law lords, hell they where created because parliment involved itself with cases in law and abused it on atleast 6 diffrent occasions.


Also Law Lords do not directly write any legislation, they control law by what they say.

Yet again, what are you complaining about?

They are appointed by the queen, if you dont like it you are more than welcome to leave...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join