quote:
Originally posted by Mouse:
And therein lies the root of the problem. There is not a fundamental set of rules and regulations that underpin the system. For example, it is my understanding there are no absolute rights that a U.K. citizen can insist upon against the State. What we have is absolute freedom unless we are forbidden to act by one of the methods of restricting this freedom mentioned above.
This may seem a reasonable state of affairs and indeed, it does lend itself to more rapid and flexible adaptation to changing circumstances. But it also has the major disadvantage that the Executive can further restrict or remove any of the freedoms that the populace enjoy by statute, and the citizens so affected have no recourse to an overarching fundamental constitution should they wish to challenge such a decision.
Agree 100%. There is a strong argument that a constitution is not a constitution unless it is higher law of some kind. I don't follow it myself - a constitution that isn't higher law is possible in my view. It is just extremely flexible which, as you point out, is a good and bad thing. I am with you about the Executive and its increased powers, what I am saying is that we do technically have a constitution. We just might as well not bother at times.
__________________
[img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe
|