UK Violations of the US Constitution Post-WW2

And where is the link between the constitution, which is really hard to change, and your opinion on the author's intention?
But why is the constitution so hard to change ... times change as do public opinions and attitudes ... at least they do in a progressive society ... so why make it so hard to change the constitution?

That's why I'm baffled by the constitution and I feel I must be missing something.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
And where is the link between the constitution, which is really hard to change, and your opinion on the author's intention?
Jefferson said that
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

The nineteen figure is based on tables of mortality - in a modern society it'd be rather longer. It's the time it takes half the population alive at a point of passage to die off.

He argued that a constitution needs to be re-examined in the light of each new generation and essentially re-ratified.

source:
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-9.htm
 
Jefferson said that


The nineteen figure is based on tables of mortality - in a modern society it'd be rather longer. It's the time it takes half the population alive at a point of passage to die off.

He argued that a constitution needs to be re-examined in the light of each new generation and essentially re-ratified.

source:
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-9.htm

And he lost the argument. Jefferson's ideas were great for a revolution. Not so much for a stable society.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
And he lost the argument. Jefferson's ideas were great for a revolution. Not so much for a stable society.
The US is actually close to unique in having those laws as inviolable and near-impossible to change.

In the US it's always "But what did these 18th century gentlemen actually mean when they said this?"
What they meant was, in many cases, black people were probably better as slaves and women couldn't vote. Because they were writing this thing over two hundred years ago.
That's why the whole idea of saying "is this constitutional" seems kind of bizarre to a Brit.
 
The US is actually close to unique in having those laws as inviolable and near-impossible to change.

In the US it's always "But what did these 18th century gentlemen actually mean when they said this?"
What they meant was, in many cases, black people were probably better as slaves and women couldn't vote. Because they were writing this thing over two hundred years ago.
That's why the whole idea of saying "is this constitutional" seems kind of bizarre to a Brit.

The interesting thing is that the text of the constitution is largely rather more progressive than all that. For instance, it refers in all cases to "persons" not "men," and refuses to even have the word "slave" in it. (Instead, the originaly 3/5ths compromise refers in an almost orwellian circumlocution to "free persons" and "all other persons").

The constitution is also transformed quite massively by the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment nationalized citizenship and civil rights, changing entirely the application of the first ten amendments known as the bill of rights.
 
Jefferson said that
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
The nineteen figure is based on tables of mortality - in a modern society it'd be rather longer. It's the time it takes half the population alive at a point of passage to die off.

He argued that a constitution needs to be re-examined in the light of each new generation and essentially re-ratified.

source:
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-9.htm

Is there any document showing precisely what Jefferson wanted as a constitution? Resuming his ideas on constitutional law?

And he lost the argument. Jefferson's ideas were great for a revolution. Not so much for a stable society.

The great general of the revolution and Emperor of the republic said once: "A constitution is a work of time. You can not let a too wide way for improvements."

And Napoleon's regime was very stable, as far as I know. I think this is the most notable problem of the US constitution (except the lack of refference to politicals parties, the overrepresentation of little states etc.).

But why is the constitution so hard to change ... times change as do public opinions and attitudes ... at least they do in a progressive society ... so why make it so hard to change the constitution?

That's why I'm baffled by the constitution and I feel I must be missing something.

Hm you are answering to my question with exactly the same question. Does anyone now how to solve this problem?
 
But why is the constitution so hard to change ... times change as do public opinions and attitudes ... at least they do in a progressive society ... so why make it so hard to change the constitution?

That's why I'm baffled by the constitution and I feel I must be missing something.

It's hard to change because it is the basic blue-print for an over-arching government in the US. Laws in relation to specific circumstances and such can always be changed as the time goes on, but the idea behind the way the government is set up is that if there is a legitimate cause for concern that the government itself isn't functioning properly, then an amendment to solve the issue will inevitably come through. If an amendment can't gather enough steam, then the "issue" in question probably isn't important enough to warrant a change anyways.

Also, there was something of a fear at the time of writing in regards to the rather nebulous structure of British government, in which there is theoretically no well-defined law or statement keeping them from doing anything they want (and in the eyes of the Americans, the British were doing just that prior to the ARW). Thus the need for a written constitution that could only be changed if the vast majority of the country felt it was necessary.
 
Last edited:
If the UK had the US Constitution, what actions by the government following World War Two would have been regarded as unconstitutional by a UK Supreme Court?

Giving someone a Title of nobility. The US constitution EXPLICITLY FORBIDS granting titles of nobility.
 
Top