Indeed. We don’t talk about it in our every day, but when Boris Johnson was trying to go all Trumpy and suspending Parliament, suddenly we had an awful lot of commentary about it being unconstitutional.
And a Supreme Court decision saying the prorogation was unconstitutional. Parliament resumed.
Newfoundlanders have a constitutional right to be able to buy margarine.
“You can have my oleorine when you pry it…”
I was certain you were joking about that… but nope (warning, pdf).
From a lovely publication “Margarine in Newfoundland History”. For anyone curious who doesn’t want to click the link, apparently margarine was banned elsewhere in Canada, but was a necessary staple in Newfoundland, which wasn’t suitable for much dairy production. The point became moot when the Supreme Court struck down margarine bans as unconstitutional that same year.
Brave Hungarian peasant girl, who forced King John to sign the Pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten.
Wouldn’t that be sorta messy and slippery?
Spaniard here. Our constitution dates from the late 1970s, after Franco died. It was approved in referendum on December 6, 1978 - a day that has been a national holiday since then.
We look at our constitution in a kind of strange way… on the one hand we think that it has been one of the most important things to arise from the post-Franco transition into democracy. On the other, we feel a bit cynical because the 1978 constitution has been the n-th constitution to be promulgated in Spain… with all the previous ones having been diluted and ignored (by governments that only wanted the parts that were favorable to their own political positions) or outright torn out (by authoritarian kings and by dictatorships that took power at different times in our history).
It is true that this one seems to be enduring, and we appreciate it a lot. But I would not say that we “worship” it. It is well written, as it was written through a consensus of learned people from across the whole political spectrum, trying to prevent the abuses of power that characterized the Franco dictatorship.
One thing that happens is that it is tremendously hard to amend. The drafters of the constitution were aware of how often previous constitutions had been amended to accomodate the wishes of whoever was in power at the time, and on purpose they made the amendment process hard, and spanning at least two separate administrations (the amendment process begins during one administration, and is only ratified by the administration that is in power after the next general election - the amendment process also requires decisive majorities in congress and senate, a referendum, and confirmation of the amendment at the next administration).
No more so than constitutional law, from what I hear!
Thanks for that link. Very interesting background.
That’s the beauty of it!
Canada’s amendment process requires Quebec to agree with the other provinces, so I think we’ve got you beat!
That last amendment is a beauty.
Nope. No province has a veto for matters under the general formula, which requires 2/3 of the provinces, having at least 50% of the population, plus the feds.
There are some things that require unanimous consent, so Quebec is in the same position on that one as all the other provinces.
I might not have been entirely serious in my response. 
However, in practice, given the fallout from Meech Lake and Charlottetown, the chances of any constitutional change proceeding without Quebec seem pretty low.
The UK supreme court is a relatively recent development (or invention) and does not have anything like the powers of the US supreme court.
It has had nothing to do with establishing government principles historically.
However this is really off-topic from the OP.
Germany:
Unlike the US, our constitution (the Grundgesetz, adopted in 1949) is not considered as fundamental to the existence of the nation, but pretty fundamental to the existence of the postwar order.
A few differences to the US
- The section on fundamental human and civil rights (articles 1-20) were put in the beginning for a reason, because the experience of the Nazi period shows that the rights of people are most important, and the state exist in service of those rights.
- Outspoken respect for, and pride in the Constitution is very much a centrist thing (for a very wide value of centrist), because the Constitution safeguards liberal democracy, and both the extreme Left and the extreme Right oppose liberal democracy.
- The Constitution is a safe thing to be proud of, among the wide political spectrum where expressions of national pride are otherwise very much suspect.
- The Constitution’s prestige is enhanced by a Constitutional Court with teeth and with proven mechanisms against being suborned by any one party, however powerful. The safeguards against packing the court are:
Half of the judges are elected by the federal parliament (Bundestag), with a two thirds majority
The other half are elected by the state chamber (Bundesrat), also with a two thirds majority
Judges are limited to one term of 12 years, and must retire at age 68
This has proven effective against any attempt to pack the Court.
80% Yes to mandatory retirement of High Court and Federal Court justices at age 70.
Previously it was life tenure.
Rationale:
- a perceived need ‘to maintain vigorous and dynamic courts’
- a need to open up avenues for ‘able legal practitioners’ to achieve judicial positions
- a growing community belief in a compulsory retiring age for judges
- avoiding ‘the unfortunate necessity’ of removing a judge made unfit for office by declining health.
IIRC three countries don’t have a formal written constitution: Britain, New Zealand, and Israel. Most countries created one upon independence, revolution. or some other significant event. Not sure why Israel didn’t, maybe they couldn’t agree on one?
I’m loving this conversation and learning so much. Thanks everyone!