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.
Originally posted by MacDonagh
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?
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?
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.
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.
I do agree with your point about Monarchy though.
Source
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Odium
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.
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.
Also Law Lords do not directly write any legislation, they control law by what they say.