From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: British constitution: draft FAQ entry.
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:15:23 GMT

In article <lg534jINNce@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:

	Look!  Holohan has undergone a Whovian regeneration and
	changed his name!  I was beginning to wonder had happened
	to him.

	Alec.


>In all humility I offer below a draft s.c.b FAQ entry on the topic of
>"Does Britain have a constitution?".
>
>The answer to the question "does Britain have a constitution?" is both
>yes and no.  Yes, Britain has a constitution (part of it even in writing) in
>the same way that your local dog-racing club has a constitution. Namely
>a body of lore, procedures, precedent, and law covering how certain aspects
>of its government are performed.  No, Britain doesn't have anything approaching
>the American Constitution, meaning an extra-legal framework which includes a
>meaningful Bill of Rights for the people covering separation of church and
>state, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, due process, separation of
>powers, and judicial review of all laws.
>
>Of course, human nature is subject to the same frailties the world over,
>and a government is only as good as the people who comprise it.  There have
>been abuses of power in both Britain and the United Statess, and there will be
>again in the future.  A better question might therefore be "are people better
>off with, or without a formal written enumeration of their basic rights, and a
>procedure for challenging abridgement of these?"
>
>Some of the documents that describe the British process of government are:
>> Coronation Charter of Henry I, 1101.
>> Great Charter, 1215.
>> Declaration that the Commons shall Initiate Money Bills, 1407.
>> Habeas Corpus Act, 1679.
>> Bill of Rights, 1689.
>> Act of Succession, 1701.
>> Septennial Act, 1716.
>> Reform Acts, 1832, 1867, 1884.
>> Ballot Act, 1872.
>> Representation of the People Act, 1918, 1969.
>
>Most of these just provide for particular methods of holding elections,
>or declare eligibility for voting.  One of them, the Magna Carta, does
>actually grant a few human rights to the people.  Of course, without the right
>of independent judicial review, there is no way to challenge any usurption.
>King Henry VIII successfully breached the very first article of the Magna Carta
>when he declared the Church of England separate from the Church of Rome.  The
>breach endures to this day.
>
>Audrey says that Prof. Harry Calvert's work "An Introduction To British
>Constitutional Law"(1985) claims
>> We would, however, search the written constitution of the US equally
>> vainly. It has never been denied that that the USA functions under a
>> written constitution, yet the fundamentally important power  which
>> the Supreme Court exercises to declare invalid laws which transgress
>> the Constitution is nowhere written into it.
>
>If Prof. Calvert states that, then his search was not thorough enough.
>Article III of the US Constitution starts:
>Section 1.  The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
>one supreme court ...
>
>Section 2.  The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
>arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
>made, or which shall be made under their authority;
>
>You can't get much more explicit than a direct statement that the Supreme
>Court has judicial power over all laws of the US.  Perhaps Prof. Calvert is
>confusing the exercise of this power with its establishment?   The first
>exercise did not occur for some decades after the Constitution was ratified.
>
>   Trelford
>--
>   Inventor of the Lambada-Calculus.