An English(or British) constiution?

[captain cojones]

The magna carta was a written document that outlined the rights and obligations of the people of britain including the monarchy and barons and is the basis of our legal system, isn't that a constitution?

 

Joe

 

not really no,it wasnt a single document, but a group of them, that wasnt even written in english, if you want to nitpick!

as has been previously posted, almost all of it has been repealed(see post 7 from corydoras to see what remains).

certainly not relevant in anyway to the lives we live today.

phil dean explained very eloquently the day to day ramifications of this(post 2 or 3).

as there is no written constitution in a single document, the practical effect, is that parliment in the uk can do exactly what it wants.

[captain cojones]

I'm glad that someone has mentioned the word "obligations". It's one that all too rarely comes up.

 

There's also much talk about the rights of the individual, but very little about the rights of other members of society and society as a whole.

 

hi steve with rights come obligations........says so in me constitution mate!!

[chesters1]

unfortunately we dont have any rights.

the rights to a home !,if the government wants it it will compulsory purchase it.

no fair trials nowadays ! you need to prove your innocence rather than vice versa

free speech ,no way

coppers can stop and interrogate you without reason (not that a reason was ever needed anyway)

 

and the terrorism act gives the government powers mugabe would be envious of

 

3000+ new crimes snce labour got in isnt sign of a democratic society.

 

i think even the american bill of rights somewhere says there shouldnt be a standing army! most of the time its standing in other peoples countries

Edited August 15, 2007 by chesters1

[Newt]

Sorry chesters but not quite right.

 

From the opening paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory. Among the enumerated rights these amendments guarantee are: the freedoms of speech, press, and religion; the people's right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; and the rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also restricts Congress' power by prohibiting it from making any law respecting establishment of religion and by prohibiting the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime," guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial and local jury, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not granted to the Federal government to the citizenry or States.

[corydoras]

The Bill of Rights also restricts Congress' power by prohibiting it from making any law respecting establishment of religion/url]

I like that bit. This is the part of the US constitution that won the "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al" case back in 2005. (Teaching "Intelligent Design" in a science class contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution)

[chesters1]

Sorry chesters but not quite right.

 

From the opening paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

i'm sure i read it somewhere maybe it was reffering to the south and its problems but in trying to find those illusive few words i stumbled across this site which has lots of stuff to read err and stuff

 

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/chrono.htm#18

 

and a lot of british ones too ,even the treaties in their short lived time with the indian tribes

 

i wonder if the free land is still available for the fortunate here in this treaty?

Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787

 

i know free land was being given out a hundred years ago one of my ancestors took up the offer ,theres an american chesters1 tribe out there poor Newt maybe living next door to them ,any moany gits with yellow coats Newt?

Edited August 16, 2007 by chesters1

[chesters1]

This is all that is left of your precious Magna Carta

 

* I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

 

* IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

 

* XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

 

 

Hardly a constitution for the 21st century

amazing how things change with the word "terrorist" slung in ,america has much the same and ofcourse treats "suspects" the same way

remanding a person in prison has been going on for ever its not just a modern anti moslem thing ,those in remand havent been found guilty in any court and it can last far longer than 28 days!!!!

 

it doesent matter what "rights" anyone has on paper all are ignored if those in power wish to ignore them ,strangely our "free society" is the most draconian in the world if those in power want to do something theres a law that allows them to do it somewhere.

Edited August 16, 2007 by chesters1

[corydoras]

Just another of my 2 bits worth.

 

To have a constitution one needs three things.

 

1) Constitutional republic, but this would mean that the Monarch could no longer be head of state.

2) Separation of Church and State.

3) A 'Supreme Court' whose function is to ensure that the Legislature cannot pass laws that whittle away at the constitution

 

All of this would be politically 'to difficult' for most Brits, who traditionally sit on there hands rather than make radical changes. I can hear the 'if it's not broke, don't fix it brigade' already. There are many who would object to the first two items, not only from English voters but also from the Loyalists in NI, some Scots and no doubt some Welsh voters too.

[chesters1]

but the queen isnt the head of state that went long ago ,she is a figurehead ,she reads in her speech on the opening of parliament the words of the prime minister not her own.She has the power to kick out laws but its purely tradition as far as i know she's never used it so the Queen is distant to parliament and lawmaking and the running of the country!

shes also not a spoilt george she gets far more wealth into the country than she takes out (not including the hangers on which should have to get proper jobs) she costs less a year to us than the tv licence for a week.

church and state should be separate in fact the church (any church) shouldn't have a voice at all.

and a house of lords without puppets put up by the party in power would be our supreme court as it was intended ,unfortunately the parliament act makes the modern lords pretty toothless and party politics within the lords makes it arseless as well.

labour without the scots or welsh wouldn't have the power it has ,if either want their own "parliament" then they shouldnt act on english laws and lawmaking ,but labour would hate seperation as they would have a far lower majority in voting in parliament if it happened! so it wont under labours "rule"

 

parliament can only be democratic once parties are abolished ,its undemocratic if a slimey prospective mp turns up on your doorstep (the only time they turn up on your doorstep) begging for your vote at the election agreeing with every word you say and placate your fears with soothing words of how things will change once he gets in then forgets the lot and follows the party line once he's voted in ,in other worlds its fraud! in politics its politics

 

political parties are companies ,they have funds ,they advertise their "goods" ,they have the equivalent of salesmen (the fundraisers and members)they employ book keepers ,they own offices and buildings they have company cars etc etc etc ,how many companies get away with fraud or misleading statements about their wares (the mp's themselves) few unless ofcourse those mp's happen to work for them a few days a year! or they "contribute" to the political party company in some way behind the scenes.

 

the goverment said it would be transparent and open to get rid off corruption yet voted to keep their slimey dealings well hidden ,for corruption the government should start in parliament and work its way down!

Edited August 16, 2007 by chesters1

[corydoras]

but the queen isnt the head of state that went long ago ,she is a figurehead ,she reads in her speech on the opening of parliament the words of the prime minister not her own.She has the power to kick out laws but its purely tradition as far as i know she's never used it so the Queen is distant to parliament and lawmaking and the running of the country!

Sorry chesters, but the monarch is still the head of state of the UK and she is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, where she is represented by Governors-General. The 16 countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is over 129 million.(all from Wikipedia) It is true that her role is mostly symbolic these days but she is still Head of State of the UK and all the other Commonwealth Realms. She can't 'kick out' laws or refuse to sign new ones. If she did she would for all intents and purposes be abdicating.

 

How come it takes a Jock to explain this to an Englishman BTW? You have had two Queen Lizzies, she is our first.