Originally Posted by jcat
Britain's government and (uncodified) Constitution are much older; the U.S. has the oldest written constitution.
I'd have to disagree, mildly
as it's half semantics, and you're correct about the written
Constitution, but BG doesn't have a constitution in the same sense: an uncodified constitution doesn't carry the same weight as a written constitution. Britain's rule of law and structure of government has evolved and while the people have mostly the same freedoms they aren't guaranteed by the founding documents of the country, but rather in various collections of documents, writings, written laws and common laws that for have evolved over time, and the key word is evolved
, which indicates change, so a large part don't carry the same weight
as does the U.S. Constitution, which is the same today as when written. Ammended, certainly, but for the most part the ammendments ADD to the Constitution and CLARIFY it, rather than CHANGE it. Another way to put it: The rights and rule of law of the British people carry the weight of tradition, history and law, but do not carry the weight of being above
the law and the government, because they aren't the direct origin of the government as is the case of the US Constitution. They could be changed, correct? Repealed even? Technically, at least. And GB would still exist. If the US Constitution was repealed, the USA would no longer exist. It's the incorporating document of the country. The U.S. Constitution was the first of its kind, even though much of the law itelf was from English Law and the concepts of the structures of government as well as enlightened concepts of the rights of the people and the relationship between the people and the government. Sorry, if I'm not making much sense, it's very late and my brain is slightly addled.
If my midnight ramblings don't make sense, I'll try to clarify tomorrow.