Advantages and Disadvantages of a Written Constitution?

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

13 Oct 2022, 7:30 am

Americans and others, can you help me?

The USA has a written constitution, does it help manage your government? As I understand it, your constitution means that you MUST have an election every 4 years, no ifs and buts.

In Britain, we don't have a written constitution, and so the Conservative government has found a loophole to ensure they can stay in government indefinitely. So far it's been 12 years. So far 3 Prime Ministers have come to power, resigned and been replaced via the votes of 0.2% of the British population. Now we are on our 4th. They can continue doing this indefinitely. They have held carefully timed General Elections when they decided to, exactly when they knew people would vote them in. What if they were forced to hold elections every 4 years like the USA does?

I'm sure I have got some of the above wrong so I'd like to know what is correct and whether a written constitution is better for the citizens of a country.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,246
Location: Long Island, New York

13 Oct 2022, 1:56 pm

The advantage is you have stability. Rights guaranteed by the constitution

The disadvantage is if something in the constitution becomes outdated, it is very hard to amend.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

15 Oct 2022, 4:09 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
The advantage is you have stability. Rights guaranteed by the constitution

The disadvantage is if something in the constitution becomes outdated, it is very hard to amend.


Thanks!

Does this affect governments? i.e. can they be voted out every 4 years whatever happens?


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

15 Oct 2022, 4:22 am

As opposed to other forms of constitution?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

15 Oct 2022, 4:22 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
As opposed to other forms of constitution?


As a opposed to not having a written constitution, as I said. :P


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,881
Location: temperate zone

15 Oct 2022, 7:18 am

KitLily wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The advantage is you have stability. Rights guaranteed by the constitution

The disadvantage is if something in the constitution becomes outdated, it is very hard to amend.


Thanks!

Does this affect governments? i.e. can they be voted out every 4 years whatever happens?


Well it depends. If You have a written constitution, and the written constitution actually says "the big Kahuna of the nation cannot serve a term beyond X number of years" then...there it is in Black and White. He cant run for office again after X number of years.

But even if you have a written constitution, but that constitution doesnt have an actual written sentence that limits the length of time of the big kauna's tenure in office then ... no...it would not make a diffence.


The fact that one of your parties is exploiting a loophole to stay in power for an excessive time...sounds effed up! Maybe even criminal.

But arguably the US had something kinda like that back in the day.

Way back at the beginning of the US our first POTUS served two terms, and then stepped down, saying "two terms are enough for any man". George Washington set the tradition...that our chief executive only even attempts to win two terms.

So all of our presidents after that were either one term (four years), or two terms (eight years) from then on for more than a century. Until FDR. Roosevelt ran and won four times, and served 12 years (and would have served 16 years if he hadnt died in office in his last term).

So when he died Congress actually carved Washington's notion into the stone of actual law "thou shalt not serve more than two terms as POTUS". Its only been since that time (the last year of WWII) that its actually been against the law to serve more than two terms as POTUS.

And actually FDR's Democrat party continued in the White House under Truman, until 1952 when Ike took over.

===

Your British system is a little different. You Brits vote for your local reps to Parliament (just like we Americans vote for congressmen and senators). But you dont directly vote for your Prime Ministers the way we vote for our presidents.

(we vote directly for the president. Except we DONT vote directly for the president because thats what the electorial college does. And the Electorial College is a vestige of the British parliamentary system that the Founding Fathers stuck us with, but thats another can of worms. We do cast ballots for the POTUS).

As I understand it - you all vote for your reps. And then the reps in Parliament pick among themselves who leads the party. Kinda like how we a have a minority leader and a majority leader in Congress. But in your system the Majority Leader becomes the head of the nation itself - the Prime Minister. So it would be as if Chuck Schumer were the equivalent of the POTUS when the Dems control Congress, and then Mitch McConnel becomes the Prime Minister when and if the GOP wins Congress back in the next election.

So in your system its about the party keeping power, in contrast to the US, where the issue is the person (president) keeping power.

But to answer your question- either way it would take some kind of legislated law to close your country's loophole.

Also the British "constitution", which is a vague body of precedent and tradition, and not an actual document, would seem to be more malleable and subject to chicanery than our written constitution would be.



Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

15 Oct 2022, 9:12 am

New Zealand has an uncodified constitution as well. Basically it's made up of several articles of legislation, plus a few other legal documents, along with some longstanding political conventions (many of which were inherited from the UK). Some parts of this "unwritten constitution" can be changed by a simple Act of Parliament. Others require a referendum, such as changes to electoral laws.

In many Westminster-style parliamentary democracies, there is no limit for how long a government can remain in power. Even in Australia, which has codified constitutions at both the federal and state level, the number of terms a government can serve is technically unlimited. Realistically of course, governments are still subject to shifts in public opinion over time.

While democratic governments must hold elections at more-or-less regular intervals, in some parliamentary democracies (such as the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ) the Prime Minister can set the exact date of a national election at their discretion. It's not actually a loophole, it's just a feature of their system. Personally though I think it's a stupid idea. In my state of Queensland we voted in a referendum in 2016 to get rid of this, in favour of fixed dates for state elections every four years. A similar process could be used to introduce term limits for governments, with or without a codified constitution, but down here at least it's not a priority.

I agree with ASPartOfMe's summary of the pros and cons of different constitutions. Personally, I do favour a written constitution for things like the basic function of government, elections and the basic rights and responsibilities of citizens. But I'd still prefer most laws to be left to legislation, making them easier to change when the need arises.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

15 Oct 2022, 9:13 am

naturalplastic wrote:
The fact that one of your parties is exploiting a loophole to stay in power for an excessive time...sounds effed up! Maybe even criminal.

But to answer your question- either way it would take some kind of legislated law to close your country's loophole.

Also the British "constitution", which is a vague body of precedent and tradition, and not an actual document, would seem to be more malleable and subject to chicanery than our written constitution would be.


You have hit the nail right on the head with all that. Our government is criminal and we need to get rid of them...but how?

Can you send Joe Biden to be a caretaker of Britain for a while?


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,147

15 Oct 2022, 5:50 pm

I guess one supposed advantage of a written constitution is that it's set in stone and so nobody will ever fly in its face, so if it's a good constitution, you have some strong and valuable protections that you can depend on regardless of the caprices of future leaders etc.

But how fixed is it, in practice? The USA for example has amendments to its constitution. Doesn't that mean it's not really set in stone, or did somebody at some point decide the door would be permanently closed to further amendments? A constitution is only set in stone while those in power recognise it as being set in stone. As well as loopholes and differences in interpretation, isn't there also always a risk that a government might decide they've got the muscle power to disregard it? I've heard it said that the only ultimate source of governmental power is the loyalty of the armed forces.

And even if it's possible, is it desirable? Is an immutable set of tenets of morality always going to be the most appropriate basis for the laws governing a culture that may last for thousands of years? It might seem hard to believe that our current ideas of the basics of morality could ever change, but as cultures change, so might our notions of right and wrong. Time was when Biblical rules were probably seen by most people who read them as absolute and perfect, but these days there's a school of thought that questions some of the axioms, and although I agree with some of it, I'd hate to feel bound by it all - e.g. the notion that parents must always be obeyed, or that animals are nothing but human property. There seems to be no room for the moral relativist in a society with a hard-and-fast constitution.

I know this empirical comparison of questionable value to the question of the usefulness of a constitution, but just to provide food for thought:
The USA broke off from the UK and wrote itself a constitution, and many Americans to this day are very proud of those events in their history. Yet it's hard to argue that the USA turned out to be overall a significantly better country to live in, if we discount the fact of its sheer size that tends to buffer it against global economic shocks.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,881
Location: temperate zone

15 Oct 2022, 6:20 pm

Well...the US Constitution was designed to be changable, but not TOO changeable. You can amend it, but its a legislative b***h to do that. Takes a super majority in Congress, plus the states hafta ratify it. And thats part of the genius of the document- it incorporates those opposite traits. Constance, but with some flexibility in anticipation of future needs in future times.

Though it can be frustrating if you live in times when a feature of the constitution becomes outmoded. Those today who wanna ditch the Electorial College are frustrated by the inability to ditch it, or even reform it.

But even a written constitution is subject to...interpretation.

The Supreme Court Justices have always differed between strict constructionists and loose constructionists (like Christians who take the Bible literally vs those who take it as metaphor).

We have the gospels of Jesus written down in the New Testament. So you would think that everyone would agree on what his teachings were. But we have hundreds of rival sects of Christianity because his words are interpreted slightly differently by different people around the globe.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,147

15 Oct 2022, 9:53 pm

^
An intelligent post, IMHO.



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

16 Oct 2022, 5:02 am

Yes, everything can be interpreted differently by different people/sects.

e.g. It's wrong to kill.

On the surface, that's correct and moral.

But what if a person is about to kill you? Or is about to kill your children? Or killed someone you loved years ago, was not punished, and you go after them years later for revenge?

It all gets a bit muddied then doesn't it. And the same with all we see as right and wrong.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

20 Oct 2022, 12:17 pm

wtf?

England doesn't have written rules of how it's country is governed? :?


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,147

20 Oct 2022, 2:28 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
wtf?
England doesn't have written rules of how it's country is governed? :?

It is written, but strewn across a plethora of documents.
Though not codified, the UK's constitution is written in hundreds of Acts of Parliament, court cases, and in documented conventions. Its essential principles are Parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and internationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut ... ed_Kingdom

All of which makes it very hard for ordinary people to know what's unconstitutional and what isn't. Even the "experts" don't always find it clear.



roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,174
Location: Indiana

20 Oct 2022, 4:16 pm

Imagine you are playing a game of football. There are teams, coaches, referees, leagues, and everything else. Now imagine you are playing without a written rulebook. Whatever the unwritten rules are is defined by whichever team happens to be winning at the time--and whichever team is winning is based on what the crowd wants--not skill or fair play.

Now imagine all the same ideas apply to government, and you will have an idea of why I think an unwritten constitution is an awful idea. An unwritten constitution sounds to me like politicians are just working on the Honor System. Does anyone here trust any politician to follow a bunch of unwritten rules out of the goodness of their hearts? I don't. My constitution is flawed as hell, but at least it is spelled out for all to see.


_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
Those with power do what their power permits, and the weak can only acquiesce.

- Thucydides


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

21 Oct 2022, 9:18 am

I am hoping that once this current period of insanity passes...if it does...we will have a complete overhaul of how Britain is run and can start afresh.

When that will be, I don't know...


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.