From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:15:56 GMT

In article <jhdcq9c@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>They'd have to have enough of a majority that the defection of some
>government members left them with a majority.   If what they proposed 
>was really obnoxious, what we might loosely refer to as "unconstitutional", 
>I think you could depend on some government MPs simply to refuse the 
>whip.  If all else fails, it's up to the Queen.   That would be delicate,
>but after all, that's why we pay her the big bucks.

>|> >The Government does do things unilaterally.  It declares States
>|> >of Emergency, for example.  Now tell me the US Government never
>|> >does things unilaterally.
>|> 
>|> I was referring more to election rules than to things like states
>|> of emergency.  I am not sure what you mean by "unilaterally"; rules
>|> that are actually specified in the U.S. Constitution itself can only
>|> be changed by following the amendment process.
>
>Ah, and how do you feel about locking up the Nisei, and separate
>but equal, or Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus?  Come to think
>of it, wasn't Noriega's communication with his lawyer bugged, and
>isn't there supposed to be some guy locked away in solitary so that
>he can't finger Quayle?

>I'm not setting out to be gratuitously rude about the US, by the way.   
>All this and more has happened in most countries.    I'm just still 
>arguing against the notion that a written Constitution immunizes you 
>against such high jinks.   It bothers me when a Government locks up
>a minority first (1941) and then gets the Court to cover it with a 
>fig leaf retrospectively.   Makes me wonder what the Constitution's 
>role really is.

If you are "arguing against the notion that a written Constitution
immunizes you against such high jinks", then I am not necessarily
disagreeing with you.  I was just referring to one aspect of a
Constitution: election rules.  I think it makes sense to say that
simply winning the election does not give you the right to modify
the election rules in a fundamental way.  On the other hand, if the
U.S. Government *does* want to modify the rules, there is a well-defined
(and arduous) procedure to follow.

To put it another way, a U.S. President might unilaterally declare
himself "President for Life", and the Constitution wouldn't leap
to battle and beat him up, but at least people would know that rules
were being broken.  The peculiar thing about Britain is that it is
not clear what rules would be broken by the ruling party rigging
the game in its favor.  Suppose one government votes for PR
in order to increase its chances of being reelected.  Then finally
after many years, the other party takes control, and then changes it
back to the old way!  Are they breaking the rules or not?  Your
answer seems to be that this depends on the good judgment of the
MPs and ultimately the Queen.  Which is fine I guess, but peculiar
from an American perspective.

Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic