# 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:** 5
**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, 2:59pm 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/547164/81 "2010-07-21T14:59:15Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > 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. That’s great **Skammer**. I’m glad you have an understanding of the mutable nature of your constitution. I’m just not convinced every one else has the same opinion. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2010, 3:15pm 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/547164/82 "2010-07-21T15:15:17Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Sorry, were they actually using the word “constitution” or has British history been retrofitted post-1789? Cite please. Yes, the word “constitution” is the important bit. ---
**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, 3:20pm 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/547164/83 "2010-07-21T15:20:33Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > That’s great **Skammer**. I’m glad you have an understanding of the mutable nature of your constitution. I’m just not convinced every one else has the same opinion. Of course it is mutable. (See those things called “Amendments?”) But it cannot be changed at the whim of a simple majority (unlike, apparently, much of the British “constitution”). Have you any idea how difficult it is to get two-thirds of the US Senate and 2/3 of the US states to agree on anything? > [@amanset](#): > > 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”. You seem to be mistaking the point. No one is arguing that Sweden and The Netherlands don’t have constitutions (_now_). We are saying that the things that came before the US Constitution can only be defined as “constitutions” if you are using the term very broadly to include simple legislative acts that do not comprise a higher law. ---
**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, 3:23pm 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/547164/84 "2010-07-21T15:23:55Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Yes, the word “constitution” is the important bit. Well if we are arguing about whether the British _had_ one, I’d say it is. They didn’t seem to think so until after the US produced a written one. Then suddenly it’s “Hmm? Oh yeah, we have one of those too! And ours came _first!_ Don’t ask us to _show_ it to you though.” ---
**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, 3:37pm 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/547164/85 "2010-07-21T15:37:20Z")
Ah, here is the descriptive term I am looking for when I say “higher law”: “[entrenchment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#Entrenchment)”– > [@](#): > > The presence or lack of entrenchment is a fundamental feature of constitutions. An entrenched constitution cannot be altered in any way by a legislature as part of its normal business concerning ordinary statutory laws, but can only be amended by a different and more onerous procedure. There may be a requirement for a special body to be set up, and the proportion of favourable votes of members of this body may be required to be higher to pass an amendment than for statutes. Some constitutions contain entrenched clauses, i.e. articles stating that certain modifications are either more difficult to make than normal modifications, or may never be made under any circumstances. Entrenchment is an inherent feature in most codified constitutions. A codified constitution will incorporate the rules which must be followed for the constitution itself to be changed. > > **The US constitution is an example of an entrenched constitution, and the UK constitution is an example of a constitution that is not entrenched** (or codified). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 3:41pm 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/547164/86 "2010-07-21T15:41:33Z")
In other words, the word “constitution” by itself doesn’t necessarily carry the meaning you are asking about. ---
**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, 3:51pm 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/547164/87 "2010-07-21T15:51:24Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > In other words, the word “constitution” by itself doesn’t necessarily carry the meaning you are asking about. You mean the word the British never seemed to use to refer to their government until after 1789? No, I suppose not. 😉 If it salves wounded British pride maybe we can refer to the US as having the “oldest entrenched constitution.” And then get back to the debate as to whether that is a good thing. ---
**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, 4:03pm 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/547164/88 "2010-07-21T16:03:05Z")
[QUOTE=Spoke] Sorry, were they actually using the word “constitution” or has British history been retrofitted post-1789? Cite please. [/quote] Reply of Charles I to the Commons’ Petition, 1641: > [@](#): > > To the first, concerning religion … , we say that, for preserving the peace and safety of this kingdom from the design of the popish party, we have and will still concur with all the just desires of our people in a parliamentary way; that for the depriving of the bishops of their votes in parliament, we would have you consider that their right is grounded upon the fundamental law of the kingdom and constitution of parliament… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 4:07pm 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/547164/89 "2010-07-21T16:07:56Z")
That wording makes me wonder if it is a reference to a “constitution” as in “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” (as defined by Wikipedia) or is it a reference to “grounded upon the … constitution of parliament” as in “the fact that we have created a parliament.” ---
**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, 4:17pm 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/547164/90 "2010-07-21T16:17:01Z")
Good point. It’s ambiguous. This from Charles I trial isn’t, however: > [@](#): > > I do stand more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges … I do not come here as submitting to the Court. I will stand as much for the privilege of the House of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever: I see no House of Lords here, that may constitute a Parliament … Let me see a legal authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or **warranted by the constitutions of the Kingdom** , and I will answer. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 4:23pm 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/547164/91 "2010-07-21T16:23:05Z")
> [@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). Uhm, I’m going to have to disagree. In the UK, the Legislature is Sovereign. There is no balance of powers. The Legislature can override the Judiciary, or dissolve the Judiciary as it sees fit. > [@Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)](#): > > Parliament… has… the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Parliament is not bound by its predecessor. Neigh? So the bill of rights, in the UK, while recognized by the courts as “more equal,” is only more equal as long as the Parliament says so. If they say no, it’s not. When people in the US discuss constitutions – or when people discuss it in the context of this thread – they mean constitutions that cannot be changed upon a whim. A whim is through the same process as passing laws, for example: amending the constitution is more complex than passing a law changing all road marker paint from yellow/white to green/orange. The US System of 2/3 in both the House and Senate is immensely complex, and near impossible. It takes a massive majority, and that’s only to _amend_ the constitution, not change it in its entirety. To change it in its entirety, you’d need to call a constitutional convention, which is an even more complex, and ambiguous process. However, in the UK, it’s theoretically possible for one group with a 51% majority of Parliament to simply say “fuck it, lets make us a new constitution” and _ **bam** _, new constitution time. ---
**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, 4:34pm 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/547164/92 "2010-07-21T16:34:52Z")
The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty has [come](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty#United_Kingdom) a long way since 1885: > [@](#): > > Following the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council certain statutes are protected as Constitutional Statutes. The case involved amendments to the Weights and Measures Act 1985 by the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994 pursuant to Directive 80/181/EEC. This stated that Imperial measurements could be displayed so long as the metric measurements were displayed in larger type beside them. Thoburn was convicted for only displaying Imperial measurements. In his defence he argued that allowing even limited use of Imperial measurements was in contravention of the relevant directive and therefore in contravention of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. This would have invoked the doctrine of implied repeal which is essential to the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. In his judgment, Lord Justice Laws held that certain statutes of constitutional importance including Magna Carta and the European Communities Act 1972 could not be repealed by implied repeal. As such, this has slightly limited Parliament’s sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 5:17pm 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/547164/93 "2010-07-21T17:17:19Z")
> [@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”?) What nonsense. A very simple, if rather crude, way of showing that the concept of a British constitution easily predates 1787 is to search for the phrase in book titles in the [ESTC](http://estc.bl.uk/F/?func=file&file_name=login-bl-estc). A search for book titles up to 1786 containing the phrase ‘English constitution’ produces 97 results, while doing the same for ‘British constitution’ produces 27 results. Restricting the search to books published up to 1750 gives 41 for ‘English constitution’ and 15 for ‘British constitution’. (One should also note that there are others that use the phrase ‘ancient constitution’.) Almost all were clearly using these phrases in the sense of the ‘set of laws’ that ‘enumerates and limits the powers and functions of’ the British/English state. The concept was a commonplace and had been for several generations. ---
**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, 6:26pm 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/547164/94 "2010-07-21T18:26:07Z")
A search for terms doesn’t tell us much as we don’t know the context. For all we know without context, “English constitution” could refer to the national character rather than constitution in the modern sense, or even if used with reference to government it could refer to the makeup of the government. **Ridley** ’s quote from Charles I comes closest to showing the usage in more or less current form (allowing for the vagueness in what exactly comprises the British “constitution”). So basically you have a set of amorphous notions, some case law, and some statutes which could be repealed at any time by a simple majority in Parliament, you have a monarch that could dissolve Parliament, a Parliament which could eliminate the judiciary, and you retain a stubborn class system. Hey, if y’all find that sufficient and you want to call it a constitution, more power to you. 🙂 Now let’s end the hijack and get back to discussing the oldest entrenched constitution (an entrenched constitution being what I think most people outside the UK think of when they think of a “constitution”). ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:12pm 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/547164/95 "2010-07-21T19:12:27Z")
Leave it up to dopers to completely ignore the topic and turn it into a big meta debate. You can’t just accept the fact that “common knowledge” calls the US’s constitution the oldest and a great deal of common knowledge is technically wrong, and get on with the discussion. The core of the topic here is: the US Constitution is really old: good or bad? That’s why it’s so dangerous to put a question mark in your thread title here. You’re just as likely as not to end up with a torrent of replies questioning your question. You guys must be really fun at dinner conversations. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:15pm 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/547164/96 "2010-07-21T19:15:57Z")
Define “dinner” and “conversation.” ---
**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, 7:18pm 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/547164/97 "2010-07-21T19:18:07Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Define “dinner” and “conversation.” British English or American? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:25pm 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/547164/98 "2010-07-21T19:25:42Z")
Well, American, obviously, since the U.S. Constitution was written in English in 1787, and the British constitution has to this day not been written in English; therefore, English is not a British language. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 8:45pm 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/547164/99 "2010-07-21T20:45:30Z")
If Britain doesn’t have a “real” constitution by virtue of it being easily changed, then what of California? The California constitution is arguably even _easier_ to change than their regular law, needing only a simple majority of voters with no involvement by legislators. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 9:02pm 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/547164/100 "2010-07-21T21:02:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If Britain doesn’t have a “real” constitution by virtue of it being easily changed, then what of California? The California constitution is arguably even _easier_ to change than their regular law, needing only a simple majority of voters with no involvement by legislators. Im not a fan of “simple” referendum style constitutional changes, however, it’s outside of the standard system of simple legislative 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=4) [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=6)