Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am a little confused by Britain constitutional system. I mean the, when did it start? I mean with the US system it started when the Articles of Confederation were created? I mean did it "start" with the Bill of Rights (1689), or when parliament was formed?

The Magna Carta started it, I suppose. It built up and accumulated.
A lot like Britain in general really. Everything growing and over-lapping over each other.

Joey wrote:The Magna Carta started it, I suppose. It built up and accumulated.
A lot like Britain in general really. Everything growing and over-lapping over each other.

Basically this...
There was no real major change of power but rather it was transferred in increments...
The only major thing i can think of is the Civil War.

Magna Carta is generally considered the proper beginning, it's an actual document laying out some rights and limitations of nobles and the monarch, but you can trace it back further to councils of nobles etc.
The Civil War(s) clarified that the monarch's power was limited and that they were there by consent of Parliament.

The Uk doesmnt have a constitution per se, nor do we need one. we have insterad a body of common law built up over centuries. This is the legacy of the Anglo-Saxon system and explains the long rterm stability of the English state, it adapts even to major catastrophes like the proto-fascist proto-republic Commonwealth in the 17th century without long term harm.

Constutions are an outdated idea perpetuated by the US who are unable to move on and therefore dont want anyone else to. This is why certain rights formulated for 18th century desires are unrepealable in the 21st. We have no such hangups and don't recommend any other country develop them.

This is why taking over nations and giving them new government and a constitution just feths them up long term. But its the American way and is supposedly 'good' as a result.

Orlanth wrote:The Uk doesmnt have a constitution per se, nor do we need one. we have insterad a body of common law built up over centuries.

Yes we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
I have no idea why so many people insist that we do not. Probably the same people who insist that "it's only a jack on a ship", yawn.

Joey wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The Uk doesmnt have a constitution per se, nor do we need one. we have insterad a body of common law built up over centuries.

Yes we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
I have no idea why so many people insist that we do not. Probably the same people who insist that "it's only a jack on a ship", yawn.

Maybe because of this from your link?

Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written constitution but an uncodified one.

Joey wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The Uk doesmnt have a constitution per se, nor do we need one. we have insterad a body of common law built up over centuries.

Yes we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
I have no idea why so many people insist that we do not. Probably the same people who insist that "it's only a jack on a ship", yawn.

'Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives.'

It's a bit of an... unorthodox constitution compared to what most would imagine...
It's technically a constitution without actually being one as far as i'm concerned...

Correct, we have no single core document the contents of which are too important or integral to repeal. We have a historical 'constutional' document of inestimable value, the Magna Carta, but its the parchment its written on that a priceless treasure, not the wording.

This keep the law flexible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
Probably the same people who insist that "it's only a jack on a ship", yawn.

You refering to the Union Jack. Those same people are correct though you misquote them.

The Union Jack exists but a 'jack' is a square flag, and thus normally used for nautical purposes. The Union Flag is the more commonly seen variant. People commonly call the Union Flag the Union Jack, but that would still be a misappropriation rather than the fact.