First Amendment No Big Deal, So Says Students

[Aragorn1]

Thank good we've got an unwritten constituion, i wouldn't like to learn it.

[wellard]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: Thank good we've got an unwritten constituion, i wouldn't like to learn it.

Maybe it is better that way. The written constitution can be a guiding light or an albatross around the neck.

Statute laws (Government made) from Magna Carta onwards defining the boundary of, but never over ruling, the unwritten Common laws (ancient accepted practices) are technically the UK constitution. Which makes it worrying is that the UK is not a democratic country with its house of lords and hereditary peers (still not all gone I believe) and that old slapper the MAJ on her throne.

[Jerry_Seinfeld]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: I don't know if Base Grade Schools are different from Off-Base Grade Schools, but when I was in the fifth grade and attending Scott Air Force Base's Scott North School, we had to learn the Bill of Rights, the Preamble (Recite it for a test no less!), and the First Ten Amendments. Do/Did they do this at other schools?

Right now I'm taking world-civics in highschool and they make us memorize the first 10 amendments, although we dont have to recite it(or the preamble) from memory(gasp), just take some tests on it.

[Jerr Conner]

Ah ok. Back in High School I took Civics (Was a required Freshmen Class) and I can't remember if we did have to memorize any amendments or not.

I was lazy freshmen year, almost flunked.

[Azred]

Academic Decathlon during my senior year--that was eons ago, mind you--featured the Constitution for the Super Quiz competition. We had to be familiar with all aspects of everything in the Constitution, even the parts that have been amended over the years.

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by Aragorn1: Thank good we've got an unwritten constituion, i wouldn't like to learn it.

Maybe it is better that way. The written constitution can be a guiding light or an albatross around the neck.

Statute laws (Government made) from Magna Carta onwards defining the boundary of, but never over ruling, the unwritten Common laws (ancient accepted practices) are technically the UK constitution. Which makes it worrying is that the UK is not a democratic country with its house of lords and hereditary peers (still not all gone I believe) and that old slapper the MAJ on her throne. [/QUOTE]Well, we are democratic, we vote for our House of Commons. There are still some heriditary peers left, but the Parliament Acts mean that they can, given due process be over-ruled. The Crown, although technically allowed to veto legislation, no longer does so, and would provoke a constituional crisis if she did, other than that the crown has little direct power over the government of the country. The UK constitution is one of residual rights, i.e. what is not forbiden we have a right to do, and segments are also found in judicil decisions and statutes. Statutes do over-rule common law, in that the are the ultimate source of legislation, although not superior in terms of validity. Common law can be the only law relating to an offence, i.e. murder, or it can fill in legislation, which sets a frame work, such as theft, orit can adapt the law to fit situations where the statutory provisions alone would not be enough to secure conviction. I feel i is a good system, that allow for Parliamentary supremacy, but for the flexibility of case law to remain.

You seem to confuse custom, old parctices which are protected by law, with case made common law, although case law was based on custom, it evolved significantly and are now quite different.

[ 02-05-2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

[Aragorn1]

Also, the Queen is the head-of-state of Australia, does that make your country un-democratic?

[shamrock_uk]

Furthermore, that the Lords aren't democratic was a strength IMO.

If you ever watch debate in the Lords and compare it to the Commons the standard is far far higher - thoughtful, measured and civilized.

They don't pander to the electorate in the way that MP's have to and thus avoid the squalid vote-grabbing debates that can often happen in that chamber.

The only poor performances I have seen in the Lords have actually been from these new Labour appointed 'life peers' - definitely lowering the standards.

The reason the Lords have been getting so much negative publicity is largely due to Tony Blair's government stampeding over the constitutional heritage of our parliament. The Lords is supposed to act as a moderating force to the actual process of law-making which avoids any confrontation. Blair is just running into problems because his legislation is ill thought-out and (rather than moderate his bills) chooses to try and ram it through with the Parliament Act.

Unfortunately, all Blair has to do is simply blame the Lords obstruction on their being undemocratic and the average punter laps it up without having any knowledge about the standard of debate in the second chamber. A sad state of affairs. I would be willing to bet that no Prime Minister in British history has ever taken such liberties with our constitution or our parliamentary conventions. He needs a good kicking.

[ 02-05-2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Aragorn1]

I also support the Lords. You can never get an overwhelming majority in both houses with the Lords, something which could lead to undemocratic practices.

[Sir Degrader]

America is not a democracy. It is a republic. Don't automatically think a democracy is a good thing, a republic or a constitutional monarchy are fine ways to rule.

http://www.mcsm.org/truth1.html
http://www.trimonline.org/website/deceived2.htm