# Does the fact that we (the US) have the oldest constitution in the world a good or bad thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164 "2010-07-18T22:17:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/61 "2010-07-21T09:20:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But not one legally set above and beyond the reach of the ordinary political/legislative process. That’s the difference. The US’s constitution is not amended through an extra-legal process. It’s amended through a process quite clearly outlined in law by the body of the US government that’s tasked with writing legislation. In this respect, the modification of the US constitution is no different to any other modification of any other constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/62 "2010-07-21T10:57:25Z")
Tell me, what happens in the UK when a court says an act of parliament violates the Magna Carta? ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/63 "2010-07-21T11:40:06Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > That may be so, but it’s a right that’s recognized here, that isn’t recognized there. Well, strictly speaking, people in the UK can own guns. They can obtain the right. And US citizens are not born with the right to bear arms (children can’t own guns) and US citizens can have that right stripped from them (for example, felons). The difference between the countries in their current gun ownership laws is a matter of degree. But the fundamental difference is in what the respective governments _might_ be able to do with regard to further tightening gun laws. In the UK it’s theoretically possible that all private ownership of guns becomes outlawed at some stage. In the US, that’s not possible under the current understanding of the law of the land. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/64 "2010-07-21T11:46:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Tell me, what happens in the UK when a court says an act of parliament violates the Magna Carta? If the high court (supreme court now?) rules a law unlawful, the government either appeals, or the law is repealed. Example [here](http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/gcn/news/high_court_rules_detention_for_indefinite_sentence_prisoners_post_tariff_is_unlawful). ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/65 "2010-07-21T11:50:27Z")
N.B. I think all convicted felons in the US should be able to own any type of gun they damn well please. It’s their constitutional right as U.S. citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/66 "2010-07-21T13:10:15Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > If the high court (supreme court now?) rules a law unlawful, the government either appeals, or the law is repealed. Example [here](http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/gcn/news/high_court_rules_detention_for_indefinite_sentence_prisoners_post_tariff_is_unlawful). That example is not a case in which the Court is saying the law contradicts the unwritten constitution. The court in that case says the actions of officials contradicted Parliament’s intent. Do you have another example of what you claim? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/67 "2010-07-21T13:27:37Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Well, yes, that’s the problem. The US idea of a constitution doesn’t define the word for everybody else. And the British don’t get to look at the US Constitution and say “Uh, well, big _deal!_ We’ve had one of those _all along!_” Because you haven’t. What you’ve had is a set of statutes. Not a fundamental law, unchangeable except by the governed, acting via a super majority. When did the British first begin calling their collection of statutes and vague notions a “Constitution” anyway? I’ll wager it was at some point after the US Constitution was written, in an effort to claim “firsties!!!” (Looking… Aha! Looks like I am right. The first such usage by the British seems to have been in [Dicey’s _An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ (1885)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_authority_in_the_British_constitution). Is there any earlier reference to a British “Constitution”?) (Also, somewhat off topic, **Ridley** , your act of looking for opportunities to denigrate the US is getting a little tiresome.) ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/68 "2010-07-21T13:36:00Z")
In what universe is the US the world’s oldest constitution? Even if we ignore ancient constitutions and restrict ourselves to the modern idea there are still European constitutions that are older than the US’s. For example, the country I am in right now, Sweden, brought their first constitution into law in 1772. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/69 "2010-07-21T13:41:01Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > In what universe is the US the world’s oldest constitution? Even if we ignore ancient constitutions and restrict ourselves to the modern idea there are still European constitutions that are older than the US’s. For example, the country I am in right now, Sweden, brought their first constitution into law in 1772. But Sweden’s **present** constitution [dates only from 1974.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Sweden) ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/70 "2010-07-21T13:42:55Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > For example, the country I am in right now, Sweden, brought their first constitution into law in 1772. Again, that was a simple statute. Not a higher law. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/71 "2010-07-21T13:43:42Z")
The law lords ruled the implementation of control orders by the home office breached article 5 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights, implemented in the UK as the Human Rights Act 1998, and as a result the specific implementation of control orders needed to be amended. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/72 "2010-07-21T13:53:51Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > And the British don’t get to look at the US Constitution and say “Uh, well, big _deal!_ We’ve had one of those _all along!_” Apart from they do. > [@](#): > > Because you haven’t. What you’ve had is a set of statutes. Not a fundamental law, unchangeable except by the governed, acting via a super majority. A law which constitutes how the government is set up. In other words, a constitution. [QUOTE=Spoke] When did the British first begin calling their collection of statutes and vague notions a “Constitution” anyway? I’ll wager it was at some point after the US Constitution was written, in an effort to claim “firsties!!!” (Looking… Aha! Looks like I am right. The first such usage by the British seems to have been in [Dicey’s _An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ (1885)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_authority_in_the_British_constitution). Is there any earlier reference to a British “Constitution”?) [/quote] Given that Cromwell et al were remonstrating in Parliament on the unconstitutional acts of the King, and later Parliament itself was complaining about the unconstitutionality of Cromwell’s Major Generals, I think you’re having a laugh here. [QUOTE=Spoke] (Also, somewhat off topic, **Ridley** , your act of looking for opportunities to denigrate the US is getting a little tiresome.) [/QUOTE] Denigrate the US? You poor thing. It must be hard keeping up the exceptionalism when people call you on it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/73 "2010-07-21T13:55:01Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > The law lords ruled the implementation of control orders by the home office breached article 5 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights, implemented in the UK as the Human Rights Act 1998, and as a result the specific implementation of control orders needed to be amended. There is an important distinction between finding that acts of discretion violate higher law, and finding that entire statutes are unconstitutional. AFAIK, the UK does not have the latter kind of judicial review, which is a very large part of what makes the US system different from the UK system. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/74 "2010-07-21T13:56:21Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Again, that was a simple statute. Not a higher law. Hey Spoke, why don’t you find a definition of “constitution” that _requires_ a constitution to be a “higher law”, whatever the hell that means. Here’s Wikipedia’s definition, for instance: > [@](#): > > A constitution is a set of laws that a set of people have made and agreed upon for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. In the case of countries and autonomous regions of federal countries the term refers specifically to a constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government. By limiting the government’s own reach, most constitutions guarantee certain rights to the people. The term constitution can be applied to any overall system of law that defines the functioning of a government, including several uncodified historical constitutions that existed before the development of modern codified constitutions. Notice the lack of something? Yeah. It’s the lack of anything related to what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/75 "2010-07-21T13:58:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But Sweden’s **present** constitution [dates only from 1974.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Sweden) The US’s constitution isn’t the same as the one from 1776 either. The most recent amendment (of which there has been 27) was in 1971. Anyway, Sweden was an example. Seeing as you linked to Wikipedia, there is this troubling bit from the page on Constitutions: > [@](#): > > The earliest written constitution still governing a sovereign nation today may be that of San Marino. The Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini was written in Latin and consists of six books. The first book, with 62 articles, establishes councils, courts, various executive officers and the powers assigned to them. The remaining books cover criminal and civil law, judicial procedures and remedies. Written in 1600, the document was based upon the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) of 1300, itself influenced by the Codex Justinianus, and it remains in force today. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/76 "2010-07-21T14:03:05Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > But the fundamental difference is in what the respective governments _might_ be able to do with regard to further tightening gun laws. In the UK it’s theoretically possible that all private ownership of guns becomes outlawed at some stage. In the US, that’s not possible under the current understanding of the law of the land. That’s not true – it’s also theoreticaly possible that in the US all private ownership of guns becomes outlawed at some stage. It would, of course, require a constitutional amendment which is a well-defined legal process. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/77 "2010-07-21T14:04:02Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Again, that was a simple statute. Not a higher law. Please tell me what a “higher law” is. As far as I can work out, to amend the US Constitution requires: > **[Article Five of the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution)** > > Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the procedure for altering the Constitution. Under Article Five, the process to alter the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments, and subsequent ratification. > Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of t... > [@](#): > > Amendments may be proposed by either two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress or by a national convention. This convention can be assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states. Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used. There is one exception to the three-fourths requirement, specified in the last clause of Article V: “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” This clause seems to empower specific states to veto their prospective reduction of representation in the Senate, even over the ratification of 49 other states. Whioch was written in article 5 of the US contitution as: > [@](#): > > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Now seeing as many Constitutions require that any proposed amendments have to be voted upon by two or more consecutive governments (for example, Sweden: “To amend or to make a revision of a fundamental law, the Parliament needs to approve the changes twice in two successive terms, with a general election having been held in between.” [Basic Laws of Sweden - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Sweden)) can people in these countries arbitrarily decide that the US Constitution isn’t sufficiently “higher law” enough and declare it not a constitution, because that is what you are doing. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/78 "2010-07-21T14:41:22Z")
You’re talking about the _current_ constitution of Sweden, **amanset**? The one from 1974? A “higher law,” as I am using it, means one that cannot be changed at the whim of a majority (or by a monarch). ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/79 "2010-07-21T14:48:29Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Given that Cromwell et al were remonstrating in Parliament on the unconstitutional acts of the King, and later Parliament itself was complaining about the unconstitutionality of Cromwell’s Major Generals, I think you’re having a laugh here. Sorry, were they actually using the word “constitution” or has British history been retrofitted post-1789? Cite please. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164/80 "2010-07-21T14:55:18Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > You’re talking about the _current_ constitution of Sweden, **amanset**? The one from 1974? > > A “higher law,” as I am using it, means one that cannot be changed at the whim of a majority (or by a monarch). Firstly, Sweden was just an example. The Netherlands is another country that has the same “two governments” rule: > **[Constitution of the Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Netherlands#Amending_the_constitution)** > > The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 24 August 1815 (Dutch: Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden van 24 augustus 1815) is one of two fundamental documents governing the Kingdom of the Netherlands as well as the fundamental law of the Netherlands proper (the territory of the Kingdom mainly situated in Europe). The Kingdom of the Netherlands also includes Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten: there is an overarching instrument of the entire kingdom that has constitution chara Th... > [@](#): > > To amend the constitution, the proposed changes must first be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the States-General with a common majority of 50% + one vote. Then parliament must be dissolved and general elections held. After that the proposed changes to the constitution are discussed a second time in both houses of parliament, this time needing a two-thirds majority to approve them I’m not sure why you are insisting that the Swedish Constitution dates from 1974. The very Wikipedia page linked to by someone else in this thread states that the 1810 Act of Succession is a part of the Swedish COnstitution. If we are deciding the age based on when the most recent part was added then the US Constitution dates back to 1971. Secondly “cannot be changed at the whim of a majority” is very much open to interpretation. From the point of view of the Swedes and the Dutch, the US system of need a majority in a certain percentage of states with no requirement for a general election could very easily be seen as “the whim of a majority”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-we-the-us-have-the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world-a-good-or-bad-thing/547164.md?page=5)