Constitutions can be codified to varying degrees. Even the written documents called “constitution” in various countries do not describe the workings of and constraints on government fully. For instance, judicial review of laws is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution.
Of course we have a constitution, even if it’s no singular written document with a preamble and bill of rights. Current events abroad amply demonstrate that such a document in no way prevents constitutional crises. As for the FTPA, it was unfit for purpose and rightly repealed by a parliament elected on a promise to do so.
I have come back from holiday to see your merry reply.
The UK has a constitution, in that one can give an account of how the UK is constituted. We have the crown and parliament and the courts and laws and so on: even you cannot deny we have each of these. And together they constitute our polity.
Almost all of this constitution is written down in one place or another in texts of varying authority, including statutes.
I suppose one can type the UK does not have a constitution, as there is no prohibition on anyone typing this. And I suppose one can type that again and again. But behold: the UK is still constituted somehow. We have a constitution.
We do not have a codified constitution, to be sure. And perhaps we should have one. That, however, is a separate questions.
My best wishes for the season to you and other commentators.
This is a dance we have danced many times, but as it is Christmas I shall not refuse.
The USA and so on have codified constitutions. But even those are not comprehensive. For example, the the US constitution does not provide for judicial review, a key element of the US constitution. Following your logic, judicial review is not part of the US constitution - even though it is a fundamental part of the constitution in practice.
The word you are looking for is "codified". And that is the word you cannot use for both.
There are good arguments for codification. There may even be some form of codification in our lifetime. But that is a separate question.
I had the honour of meeting and spending time with Lord Lane, the famous man who rewrote the criminal law on murder following the famous case during the coal mining strike and dropping a brick over a bridge onto a car resulting in death of the man driving the vehicle.
What is this to do with Constitutional Law? It was a subject I found critical in my studies in how our constitutional laws underpin moral, philosophical and behavioural values that underpin or should underpin our society. He and I spoke of this at length as he was a strong proponent of the constitutional framework and in fact gave me a book or rather a tome of his book on constitutional law, later which I donated to the uni.
He was a man who could speak with a common tongue; not exclusive but in modern parlance.
Constitutional law should both work top down legally and bottom up in our laws’ structure. It is or should be what reflects our values as a living nation.
I’m thinking of Rwanda and the prospective risk of undermining our very constitution
A government invokes emergency legislation, let's say to suspend a devolved government. The Supreme Court subsequently rules that the circumstances in which the suspension was implemented didn't warrant the action. But by then, the devolved government has been stripped of its key civil servants and the people in charge of its agencies (including policing) across the board .. they've been suspended, 'induced' into early retirements, posted abroad. Many dozens of individual removals, each ostensibly unrelated to the others. Suppose the courts restore a formal authority to the suspended administration, but it has no practical means to act .. say, the Met was put in charge of its policing, all its other agencies were under Westminster control, key posts had been packed with Westminster appointees ..
And there the analogy breaks down, because with suspension of the Prussian defence / police administration, and having overturned the Prussian parliament's ban on SA uniforms, the mob rule outside the (post-Reichstag fire) federal parliament, by which MPs were intimidated into voting through the Enabling Act was possible, because the national parliament happened to be located within the territory of the devolved administration. A Uk coup wouldn't have that circumstantial advantage.
But as a parable, it has something to say. Between the misapplication of primary legislation and the courts' correction of the situation, actions 'in outright defiance of basic moral standards' alongside actions at the time accepted as lawful create a situation where, de facto, the illiberal government has removed the remaining checks and balances, opening the door to new, truly illiberal primary legislation.
I think all I'm applying here are two basic principles: the first of which you've often stressed, that most outrages in history, such as slavery, happened according to law. And a second one, that just as the lie has made its way around the world before the truth has its pants on, the courts are always invoked after the event. The suspension of the Prussian parliament was de jure 'overturned' (partially, I admit it's complicated) within a few months, but that was already de facto too late.
Originally the word 'crisis' meant a moment of necessary decision. Surely history teaches us that we tend to only recognise them in retrospect, when the moment we could have taken the right decision has passed.
A lot of complicated things happened between the Preussenschlag and the Enabling Act. A series of plausibly lawful actions, some prepared in advance with a view to swiftly establishing an illiberal status quo, disabled the checks and balances. Starting, in the case of my analogy, by the signing of an order under emergency legislation, but that order deliberately left undated, so that it could be invoked at a politically convenient moment. A slight thing, you might think, but allowed a cascade of calamitous events, large and small, many barely noticed at the time. Some planned in advance, some opportunistic, but by the time the calamity has happened that distinction is academic.
The Prayer Book controversy of 1928 and 1929? Avoided by defeat of Baldwin and return of Macdonald who was not under pressure from old Protestant war horses like Johnson Hicks.
Constitutions can be codified to varying degrees. Even the written documents called “constitution” in various countries do not describe the workings of and constraints on government fully. For instance, judicial review of laws is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution.
Of course we have a constitution, even if it’s no singular written document with a preamble and bill of rights. Current events abroad amply demonstrate that such a document in no way prevents constitutional crises. As for the FTPA, it was unfit for purpose and rightly repealed by a parliament elected on a promise to do so.
I have come back from holiday to see your merry reply.
The UK has a constitution, in that one can give an account of how the UK is constituted. We have the crown and parliament and the courts and laws and so on: even you cannot deny we have each of these. And together they constitute our polity.
Almost all of this constitution is written down in one place or another in texts of varying authority, including statutes.
I suppose one can type the UK does not have a constitution, as there is no prohibition on anyone typing this. And I suppose one can type that again and again. But behold: the UK is still constituted somehow. We have a constitution.
We do not have a codified constitution, to be sure. And perhaps we should have one. That, however, is a separate questions.
My best wishes for the season to you and other commentators.
This is a dance we have danced many times, but as it is Christmas I shall not refuse.
The USA and so on have codified constitutions. But even those are not comprehensive. For example, the the US constitution does not provide for judicial review, a key element of the US constitution. Following your logic, judicial review is not part of the US constitution - even though it is a fundamental part of the constitution in practice.
The word you are looking for is "codified". And that is the word you cannot use for both.
There are good arguments for codification. There may even be some form of codification in our lifetime. But that is a separate question.
Thank you for your delightful, always informing comments. I wash you all the joy, blessings and good health at this Christmas Season.
I had the honour of meeting and spending time with Lord Lane, the famous man who rewrote the criminal law on murder following the famous case during the coal mining strike and dropping a brick over a bridge onto a car resulting in death of the man driving the vehicle.
What is this to do with Constitutional Law? It was a subject I found critical in my studies in how our constitutional laws underpin moral, philosophical and behavioural values that underpin or should underpin our society. He and I spoke of this at length as he was a strong proponent of the constitutional framework and in fact gave me a book or rather a tome of his book on constitutional law, later which I donated to the uni.
He was a man who could speak with a common tongue; not exclusive but in modern parlance.
Constitutional law should both work top down legally and bottom up in our laws’ structure. It is or should be what reflects our values as a living nation.
I’m thinking of Rwanda and the prospective risk of undermining our very constitution
A Merry Christmas, many thanks - and rest-ye well! (Oh... should that second hyphen be there, I wonder?)
A fascinating history lesson. Thank you.
A government invokes emergency legislation, let's say to suspend a devolved government. The Supreme Court subsequently rules that the circumstances in which the suspension was implemented didn't warrant the action. But by then, the devolved government has been stripped of its key civil servants and the people in charge of its agencies (including policing) across the board .. they've been suspended, 'induced' into early retirements, posted abroad. Many dozens of individual removals, each ostensibly unrelated to the others. Suppose the courts restore a formal authority to the suspended administration, but it has no practical means to act .. say, the Met was put in charge of its policing, all its other agencies were under Westminster control, key posts had been packed with Westminster appointees ..
And there the analogy breaks down, because with suspension of the Prussian defence / police administration, and having overturned the Prussian parliament's ban on SA uniforms, the mob rule outside the (post-Reichstag fire) federal parliament, by which MPs were intimidated into voting through the Enabling Act was possible, because the national parliament happened to be located within the territory of the devolved administration. A Uk coup wouldn't have that circumstantial advantage.
But as a parable, it has something to say. Between the misapplication of primary legislation and the courts' correction of the situation, actions 'in outright defiance of basic moral standards' alongside actions at the time accepted as lawful create a situation where, de facto, the illiberal government has removed the remaining checks and balances, opening the door to new, truly illiberal primary legislation.
I think all I'm applying here are two basic principles: the first of which you've often stressed, that most outrages in history, such as slavery, happened according to law. And a second one, that just as the lie has made its way around the world before the truth has its pants on, the courts are always invoked after the event. The suspension of the Prussian parliament was de jure 'overturned' (partially, I admit it's complicated) within a few months, but that was already de facto too late.
Originally the word 'crisis' meant a moment of necessary decision. Surely history teaches us that we tend to only recognise them in retrospect, when the moment we could have taken the right decision has passed.
A lot of complicated things happened between the Preussenschlag and the Enabling Act. A series of plausibly lawful actions, some prepared in advance with a view to swiftly establishing an illiberal status quo, disabled the checks and balances. Starting, in the case of my analogy, by the signing of an order under emergency legislation, but that order deliberately left undated, so that it could be invoked at a politically convenient moment. A slight thing, you might think, but allowed a cascade of calamitous events, large and small, many barely noticed at the time. Some planned in advance, some opportunistic, but by the time the calamity has happened that distinction is academic.
The Prayer Book controversy of 1928 and 1929? Avoided by defeat of Baldwin and return of Macdonald who was not under pressure from old Protestant war horses like Johnson Hicks.