Speaking of the British constitution...

(via Jane Galt)

Apparently Tony Blair is trying to pull a fast one in the UK, eliminating the ancient position of the Lord Chancellor and eliminating the last vestiges of House of Lords power by creating a so-called "Supreme Court". This has Iain Murray hopping mad, and among other things wonders (as I did below), what point is there to have a Supreme Court in the UK when there is no written constitution that the court can use to overrule Parliament? When its Parliament Uber Alles, a Supreme Court is an exercise in either futility or rubber stamping. Iain quotes the Telegraph thusly:

The Prime Minister has, in fact, carried out a coup d'?tat by stealth. By proposing to scrap the Lord Chancellorship without prior consultation with the judiciary, peers or the Opposition, Mr Blair shows his contempt for the rule of law, as it has evolved in Britain over the past thousand years and more. This is not merely another ministerial office that is Mr Blair's to do with as he pleases. It is woven into the seamless robe of constitutional custom and practice, which may easily unravel unless change is accomplished gradually and by common consent.

The Telegraph makes the Hayekian argument for institutional memory, tradition, and rule of (common) law vs. rule by legislative fiat- and this whole incident illustrates again my point and concern about the fate of liberty in a society without a legally binding commitment to it.

Share this

why did Britain agree to

why did Britain agree to join the international court system when now they are trying to bring war crime charges against Blair?

I don't know much about the British government structure, but I am sure there are basic written laws somewhere. Even if it isn't called a Constitution, the supreme court could in theory interpret the laws differently over time.

i have for some time now

i have for some time now been under the impression that britian is in dire need of a written constitution, but now i know from the reading that i have done, and by the shear lack of information that we have genrally been given, have come to the conclusion that england will be better off with out this written constitution. I know rather than think, that this written document will just serve for the better of the government of the day, and not be of any direct use of the people to which it is suposed to protect.
We have gone for a long time now without this document and i feel that we can go even lobger without it, i dont think the government or teachers have time to re-teach kids and people this new constitution, because what then begs the question is, Why have we not had one before?

This is hard for people to answer becasue we have seen America as a prime example of introducing a constitution, and it working effectivly, but even that has problems for american people.

I think one think that we can take from this discussion is that we should introduce the same LAW that america has for their leader, 2 terms only, i think that that will help british politcs more than a constitution, and it will stop the likes of Tony Blair becoming president like.