# British law vs. British rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828 "2012-06-02T01:44:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/21 "2012-06-02T18:53:47Z")
I question the notion that codified constitutions are adopted specifically as a means to protect political freedoms. I don’t think they work very well at that at all. Constitutions become codified generally after revolutions, or after the fundamental collapse of the old order, or after independence. As there is nothing (or almost nothing) on which they can base government without leaving the whole field open to anarchy, it makes absolute sense to ‘codify’ - in other words, to lay out the power map. If you already have the power map well known in the public domain and already working quite fine, there is absolutely no need to make one. Britain is one of the few countries which has had no revolution, or has not had to fight for its independence from another power, therefore it has no codified constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/22 "2012-06-02T19:11:42Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Britain is one of the few countries which has had no revolution, or has not had to fight for its independence from another power, therefore it has no codified constitution. Apart from the various revolutions that have occurred since an entity called “Britain” could reasonably be said to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/23 "2012-06-02T19:23:38Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Apart from the various revolutions that have occurred since an entity called “Britain” could reasonably be said to exist. I’m not sure what you’re getting at… ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/24 "2012-06-02T19:32:54Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > But to **BrainGlutton** ’s point, these checks and balances rest essentially upon tradition, and could be abrogated by Parliament (and more specifically, by the Commons). Many such changes would be politically difficult, but not in any strict sense illegal. > > Of course, this is true in the US as well. The structure of the US government and its relationship to the states and the people has changed enormously since its beginnings, sometimes by formal amendment but more often by evolutionary change that the existing power structures have accepted as being in accordance with law. And it’s theoretically possible that a determined and popular political faction could pack the elected branches and the court to an extent that despotic powers would be enacted and upheld, and such changes would be strictly legal. > > Ultimately, any democratic system rests upon a combination of law and political tradition, and the lines between those concepts blur at their deepest points. You are describing common law systems in a nutshell. Judicial Review of primary legislation in the US came about due to _Marbury v Madison_ it was not something that was inevitable or explicit in the Constitution. On the same head, the concept that Courts cannot go against or strike down an Act of Parliament is something that developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, earlier in the 1600, the Lord Chief Justice (Coke) had declared that if a statute violated natural law, the courts would not enforce it. For all we know, that position could have easily become the default one and if the fears you expressed come to pass, it is not beyond the impossible that the Courts could do that again. In the US, balance is enforced by constitutional mandate and the division of powers, in England and Wales, balance is delivered by organs which have the ability to guide, counsel warn and if necessary obstruct an uber powerful body. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/25 "2012-06-02T23:30:13Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Ever heard of the Magna Carta? The idea or adoption of a constitution hardly originated with the US and has evolved over time, much like the development of the light bulb. From one point of view it might make sense to define Edison’s creation as the “invention” of the light bulb, but versions of it existed before his and newer versions have been created since. Magna Carta isn’t a constitution, certainly not in the modern sense of the word. It was a statute which the monarch could have revoked at any time (and indeed most of it has since been revoked). Magna Carta and the (English) Bill of Rights were the genesis of individual rights being enshrined in law, but not of individual rights being enshrined in an overarching law. > [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Britain is one of the few countries which has had no revolution, or has not had to fight for its independence from another power, therefore it has no codified constitution. Wait, what? England has had a civil war and a half-dozen wars of succession. Not to mention another dozen wars of _secession_ involving bits of Britain. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/26 "2012-06-03T01:13:36Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I guess what I’m asking is, why is the British government so much less despotic in practice than it is in theory? Why isn’t the US government more despotic? The US constitution is just a piece of paper, and there’s no lack of countries around the world that are despotic despite having theorically democratic constitutions. It just falls down on the American people culturally caring a lot about their constitution (in fact, I would say caring too much about it IMO). If tomorrow they all woken up not caring, the constitution would still exist and be in force, but it wouldn’t carry much weight. It doesn’t mean, however, that they also wouldn’t care any more about say, the right to free speech and that the POTUS could abolish it by decree. It doesn’t matter much what is the source of the consensus, or its reference. What matters is that a consensus exists about how thing should get done and that deviating from this consensus isn’t normally politically conceivable. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/27 "2012-06-03T08:02:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Magna Carta isn’t a constitution, certainly not in the modern sense of the word. It was a statute which the monarch could have revoked at any time (and indeed most of it has since been revoked). Magna Carta and the (English) Bill of Rights were the genesis of individual rights being enshrined in law, but not of individual rights being enshrined in an overarching law. Quite so, although if the year 1258 had panned out differently, a written constitution may have arisen under the [Provisions of Oxford](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisions_of_Oxford), or if not them, then the [Provisions of Westminster](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisions_of_Westminster) of 1259. Or at least, the very, very beginnings of one. > [@](#): > > Wait, what? England has had a civil war and a half-dozen wars of succession. Not to mention another dozen wars of _secession_ involving bits of Britain. Well, yes. I failed to put in the proviso of ‘in modern times’ 🙂 the civil war brought down the monarchy and the House of Lords but with that exception was fairly conservative, constitutionally, having kept the House of Commons in place. And when the monarchy was restored, Parliament made absolutely no attempt to create a constitution for the new king, in effect allowing him to govern as his father did. Even the Glorious Revolution of 1689 is not universally considered a revolution, because it in effect protected the _existing_ constitution and did not draw up a new one. The Bill of Rights is just another Act of Parliament. If, say, we’d had a revolution in the 1750s or later, I don’t doubt we’d have a written constitution now. But our political struggles largely (largely) settled by this point, and the big changes came through incrementally, not suddenly with revolution. Hence, no need for a written constitution. As for secession, yes indeed - but the secession of these bits had miniscule effect on the government of the rest of Britain. Heck, even today, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having devolved Parliaments - Westminster itself has hardly noticed the difference! ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/28 "2012-06-03T12:44:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Magna Carta isn’t a constitution, certainly not in the modern sense of the word. It was a statute which the monarch could have revoked at any time (and indeed most of it has since been revoked). Magna Carta and the (English) Bill of Rights were the genesis of individual rights being enshrined in law, but not of individual rights being enshrined in an overarching law. Read the rest of my post about evolution etc. please. Also, yes, Magna Carta could be revoked but so can parts or all of the US Constitution, in theory. As with any law or rule it only works because enough people would get seriously pissed off if someone tried to change it in ways the majority find unacceptable. But clearly, in both situations, it was considered “safe” enough. Besides, it was just an example to support the “evolution” point. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/29 "2012-06-03T16:24:29Z")
The difference is that bits of the US Constitution can’t be revoked by the same people that pass/revoke general laws. I don’t think we need to carry on this hijack, though; I feel my original point has been sufficiently clarified. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828/30 "2012-06-03T19:03:36Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > What’s this “British Law” that you speak of? Its ther white folks messin ! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-law-vs-british-rights/623828.md?page=1)