From: pwu@ai.mit.edu (Peng Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china
Subject: Boy, Brits write in English
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:57:47
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: blackjack.ai.mit.edu

{Disclaimer: This article was originally posted to other news group,
 it is reposted verbatim with the hope that this news group might find it
 informative.  The view contained in this article is the author's.}

From: linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: British constitution: draft FAQ entry.
Date: 12 Nov 1992 16:55:47 GMT
Organization: The Bishop Sandwich Band

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.