FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: dgs (129 days ago)
Latest comment:

It looks like he's just had his annual wash !

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Latest comment:

It looks like he's just had his annual wash !

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: WolfPad (131 days ago)

Shut it Brand - you continue to be a complete arsehole

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Shut it Brand - you continue to be a complete arsehole

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: squirtypops (130 days ago)

and so is Corbyn

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

and so is Corbyn

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (132 days ago)

Russell never answered the question about who really won. I'll do that for him.

The queen appointed Theresa May as Prime Minister so she won. She will be in office for the term, "At Her Majesty's pleasure." Theresa May will remain in office until the queen decides to appoint a new PM. Is there any disagreement with this?

ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment

Russell never answered the question about who really won. I'll do that for him.

The queen appointed Theresa May as Prime Minister so she won. She will be in office for the term, "At Her Majesty's pleasure." Theresa May will remain in office until the queen decides to appoint a new PM. Is there any disagreement with this?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (132 days ago)

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The Queen doesn't control when to call a general election, nor does she decide on what grounds she appoints a new PM. You know that, but you don't like that so you will dance around it and deny it. Whatever.

Getting the most votes isn't the most important thing in UK politics, because the legislation you propose has to be voted in by all MPs. Theresa went from a reasonable majority and a genuinely insignificant opposition, to suddenly having a very strong and antagonistic opposition, and an incredibly tenuous majority. She had to go begging to a very unpopular party to even get to form the government. At the same time, all her strongest opponents won seats, where she lost them. That isn't much of a success. And as a result of calling an unnecessary election, she will now really struggle to get any of her campaign promises into legislation. So did she really 'win'?

On the other hand, Corbyn was completely unelectable - a total joke. Through the course of the campaigns, he has become not only a credible leader but suddenly is now a genuine socialist opposition with enough seats to prevent the hardest Tory policies getting through. No wonder he is feeling pleased.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The Queen doesn't control when to call a general election, nor does she decide on what grounds she appoints a new PM. You know that, but you don't like that so you will dance around it and deny it. Whatever.

Getting the most votes isn't the most important thing in UK politics, because the legislation you propose has to be voted in by all MPs. Theresa went from a reasonable majority and a genuinely insignificant opposition, to suddenly having a very strong and antagonistic opposition, and an incredibly tenuous majority. She had to go begging to a very unpopular party to even get to form the government. At the same time, all her strongest opponents won seats, where she lost them. That isn't much of a success. And as a result of calling an unnecessary election, she will now really struggle to get any of her campaign promises into legislation. So did she really 'win'?

On the other hand, Corbyn was completely unelectable - a total joke. Through the course of the campaigns, he has become not only a credible leader but suddenly is now a genuine socialist opposition with enough seats to prevent the hardest Tory policies getting through. No wonder he is feeling pleased.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (131 days ago)

I never mentioned anything about the queen calling for a general election. She doesn't need one. She appoints a new PM "At Her Majesty's pleasure."

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

I never mentioned anything about the queen calling for a general election. She doesn't need one. She appoints a new PM "At Her Majesty's pleasure."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: GTing (131 days ago)

You're amusingly wrong. I know you have an axe to grind about this because you desperately want your country to be more democratic than the UK (an amusing notion after your recent election), but you end up looking very silly by ignoring the actual truth. Google the Royal Prerogative, there are official documents from Parliament that outline what she can and cannot do so you won't have to make it up to suit your bias.

No, she doesn't appoint a PM at her pleasure, but as you pointed out (and as is published in the legislation) "the sovereign must appoint that person who is in the best position to receive the support of the majority in the House of Commons". If it was at her pleasure, she could appoint a chambermaid or window cleaner. She can't do that because she is bound by the constitution, and in turn bound by the state of the House of Commons. If a party she hated gained a huge majority, she can't even appoint an elected MP from a different party. She is always forced to choose the person who will get majority backing.

Out of interest, do you think the medal giver decides who wins gold at the Olympics?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

You're amusingly wrong. I know you have an axe to grind about this because you desperately want your country to be more democratic than the UK (an amusing notion after your recent election), but you end up looking very silly by ignoring the actual truth. Google the Royal Prerogative, there are official documents from Parliament that outline what she can and cannot do so you won't have to make it up to suit your bias.

No, she doesn't appoint a PM at her pleasure, but as you pointed out (and as is published in the legislation) "the sovereign must appoint that person who is in the best position to receive the support of the majority in the House of Commons". If it was at her pleasure, she could appoint a chambermaid or window cleaner. She can't do that because she is bound by the constitution, and in turn bound by the state of the House of Commons. If a party she hated gained a huge majority, she can't even appoint an elected MP from a different party. She is always forced to choose the person who will get majority backing.

Out of interest, do you think the medal giver decides who wins gold at the Olympics?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (131 days ago)

You misunderstood my comment. At "Her Majesty's pleasure" means "at any time she wants." My comment was not intended to mean that she can pick whomever she wants; however I don't see any reason why she can't just pick whomever she wants. She can remove the PM from office and assign a new one without any election process.

You say she is bound by the constitution but you don't have a constitution. However, due to tradition, she picks the person she feels will have the most support in Parliment. The tradition does not say that she must appoint the person who is the leader of the party with the most seats in parliment.

If you had a constitution, it would be nice to look at the actual wording of the powers, roles, and responsibilities of each member of your government but that doesn't exist.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

You misunderstood my comment. At "Her Majesty's pleasure" means "at any time she wants." My comment was not intended to mean that she can pick whomever she wants; however I don't see any reason why she can't just pick whomever she wants. She can remove the PM from office and assign a new one without any election process.

You say she is bound by the constitution but you don't have a constitution. However, due to tradition, she picks the person she feels will have the most support in Parliment. The tradition does not say that she must appoint the person who is the leader of the party with the most seats in parliment.

If you had a constitution, it would be nice to look at the actual wording of the powers, roles, and responsibilities of each member of your government but that doesn't exist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (131 days ago)

Is it your hobby being wrong? Why are you so attached to falsehoods? It makes you look really stupid, and I doubt you are.

No, 'at her majesty's pleasure' does not mean 'at any time she wants'.

Yes, she can remove the PM, but she can't assign a new one without an election, unless they resign or are removed in any other way when again she must choose the next person who will command a majority. Fact. Look it up.

Yes, the UK has an uncodified constitution. I can't believe you don't understand what the term 'uncodified constitution' means!! Find me a link or a source that says the UK has no constitution of any kind. No? Thought not.

The Royal prerogatives are codified and have been published since 2004. Fact. Look it up. I found it after 20 seconds of Googling. It spells out in the quotes I made that she MUST choose whoever will command a majority. "In the absence of a regular term for the life of Parliament fixed by statute, the Sovereign may by the prerogative dissolve Parliament and cause a general election to be held." She has to call a general election.

I think you're just looking for an argument, because none of this is controversial. If you really believe it, you ought to read more, or just talk about stuff you know about maybe. Now, I'll stop feeding the troll and give you some time to get Googling.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Is it your hobby being wrong? Why are you so attached to falsehoods? It makes you look really stupid, and I doubt you are.

No, 'at her majesty's pleasure' does not mean 'at any time she wants'.

Yes, she can remove the PM, but she can't assign a new one without an election, unless they resign or are removed in any other way when again she must choose the next person who will command a majority. Fact. Look it up.

Yes, the UK has an uncodified constitution. I can't believe you don't understand what the term 'uncodified constitution' means!! Find me a link or a source that says the UK has no constitution of any kind. No? Thought not.

The Royal prerogatives are codified and have been published since 2004. Fact. Look it up. I found it after 20 seconds of Googling. It spells out in the quotes I made that she MUST choose whoever will command a majority. "In the absence of a regular term for the life of Parliament fixed by statute, the Sovereign may by the prerogative dissolve Parliament and cause a general election to be held." She has to call a general election.

I think you're just looking for an argument, because none of this is controversial. If you really believe it, you ought to read more, or just talk about stuff you know about maybe. Now, I'll stop feeding the troll and give you some time to get Googling.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (131 days ago)

You want me to provide you a link to something that doesn't exist. It's like providing you a link of proof the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. I cannot do that. Why don't you provide me a link to a single document that is your constitution. If one exists, you shouldn't have a problem doing that. Don't just give me a link to the Magna Carta or some other out-dated document because those are not constitution documents. I want a link that describes how your government is formed with the roles and responsibilities of all the government and their limits to their power. One that describes the queen's role too. That document should also show the rights of the people. Good luck with that.

"Published since 2004" Are you trying to tell me your constituion is the Royal perogatives and that just was published to the public for the first time in 2004? If not, then why are you bringing that up?

"she MUST choose whoever will command a majority" This is where your constitution will be handy. Once you give me a link to the constitution, it will then have that statement that says she MUST choose the PM based on the number of seats in parliment or whatever the critera is. I doubt you'll find it written in any law since it's based on tradition and definitely not in any constitution.

Why are you mentioning desolving Parliment? I didn't mention anything about that, I was talking about how the PM is assigned. Besides, if you don't think the queen has much power, then I'm surprised that you know she can desolve Parliment whenever she wants. That is much more than ceremonial power.

I'm not looking for any argument. I made a post about Russell's video for anyone who cares. I never asked you to comment or reply to it. But I am asking you now. Provide a link, like I did to the USA constitution, for the UK's version. I'd like to read about the limits and powers of all your branches of governemnt. I think you have 3: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The queen is at least part of the first two but I'd sure like to see that written in your constitution that you keep referring to. Since it's uncodified, it's a mish mash of random documents strewn about with many of those document conflicting with each other.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

You want me to provide you a link to something that doesn't exist. It's like providing you a link of proof the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. I cannot do that. Why don't you provide me a link to a single document that is your constitution. If one exists, you shouldn't have a problem doing that. Don't just give me a link to the Magna Carta or some other out-dated document because those are not constitution documents. I want a link that describes how your government is formed with the roles and responsibilities of all the government and their limits to their power. One that describes the queen's role too. That document should also show the rights of the people. Good luck with that.

"Published since 2004" Are you trying to tell me your constituion is the Royal perogatives and that just was published to the public for the first time in 2004? If not, then why are you bringing that up?

"she MUST choose whoever will command a majority" This is where your constitution will be handy. Once you give me a link to the constitution, it will then have that statement that says she MUST choose the PM based on the number of seats in parliment or whatever the critera is. I doubt you'll find it written in any law since it's based on tradition and definitely not in any constitution.

Why are you mentioning desolving Parliment? I didn't mention anything about that, I was talking about how the PM is assigned. Besides, if you don't think the queen has much power, then I'm surprised that you know she can desolve Parliment whenever she wants. That is much more than ceremonial power.

I'm not looking for any argument. I made a post about Russell's video for anyone who cares. I never asked you to comment or reply to it. But I am asking you now. Provide a link, like I did to the USA constitution, for the UK's version. I'd like to read about the limits and powers of all your branches of governemnt. I think you have 3: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The queen is at least part of the first two but I'd sure like to see that written in your constitution that you keep referring to. Since it's uncodified, it's a mish mash of random documents strewn about with many of those document conflicting with each other.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)


OK sorry, maybe you're not trolling. I think I might have been overestimating you.

I don't want you to give me a link to a constitution... I want you to give me a link to something that says the UK has no kind of constitution, which is your claim. Or do you accept that no one else believes that and you made it up to suit your bias? Remember, you're arguing that the UK has no form of constitution whatsoever. :)

Where did I say the UK constitution is a single document? Can you explain why you think constitutions have to be a single document? Search Google for "Define constitution."

Did you see where I wrote 'uncodified'? That long word means it isn't a formal constitution that is written down in one document. Search Google for "Define uncodified". Tell me which other words you're not sure about.

I am not a registered user so I cannot post links, but it literally took me 30 seconds or so to find the codified Royal prerogative on Google which is where I was pasting things from. It is very clear. In 2004 they were clarified, revamped, and republished for the sake of transparency. In 2009 there was a final review document commissioned by the commons that set them out.

Obviously you won't look this stuff up because you've encountered information before that you haven't liked or actually understood (including from Wikipedia, including stuff you've actually pasted on here). You even read a Wikipedia page that actually says the "constitution of the United Kingdom is a sum of laws and principles that make up the body politic of the UK", but you still think the UK doesn't have a constitution because you don't know what uncodified means. You even said that the Queen MUST act in a certain way, but you think she can act 'at her pleasure'.

Sorry, sunshine. I can't help. Ask your dad.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment


OK sorry, maybe you're not trolling. I think I might have been overestimating you.

I don't want you to give me a link to a constitution... I want you to give me a link to something that says the UK has no kind of constitution, which is your claim. Or do you accept that no one else believes that and you made it up to suit your bias? Remember, you're arguing that the UK has no form of constitution whatsoever. :)

Where did I say the UK constitution is a single document? Can you explain why you think constitutions have to be a single document? Search Google for "Define constitution."

Did you see where I wrote 'uncodified'? That long word means it isn't a formal constitution that is written down in one document. Search Google for "Define uncodified". Tell me which other words you're not sure about.

I am not a registered user so I cannot post links, but it literally took me 30 seconds or so to find the codified Royal prerogative on Google which is where I was pasting things from. It is very clear. In 2004 they were clarified, revamped, and republished for the sake of transparency. In 2009 there was a final review document commissioned by the commons that set them out.

Obviously you won't look this stuff up because you've encountered information before that you haven't liked or actually understood (including from Wikipedia, including stuff you've actually pasted on here). You even read a Wikipedia page that actually says the "constitution of the United Kingdom is a sum of laws and principles that make up the body politic of the UK", but you still think the UK doesn't have a constitution because you don't know what uncodified means. You even said that the Queen MUST act in a certain way, but you think she can act 'at her pleasure'.

Sorry, sunshine. I can't help. Ask your dad.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (130 days ago)

I know what uncodified means. It means you don't have a document called a Constitution. You have random documents that have pieces of laws and practices but nothing consolidate. So there is nothing preventing one of your lawmakers from creating a law that conflicts with a specific document.

For example, if someone tries to create a law regulating religion in the USA, that cannot be done because our constitution specifically states no laws regarding religion can be made (paraphrased).

Uncodified is the opposite of being an organized document. So the fact you keep saying you have an uncodified constitution just reassures me that you don't have a constitution at all. With that logic, you can say any country that has at least one law regardless if it is written or verbal has an uncodified constitution.

Nothing is stopping you from creating an account so you can post links. Either you're too lazy to do it or you don't know how. But that's your problem.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

I know what uncodified means. It means you don't have a document called a Constitution. You have random documents that have pieces of laws and practices but nothing consolidate. So there is nothing preventing one of your lawmakers from creating a law that conflicts with a specific document.

For example, if someone tries to create a law regulating religion in the USA, that cannot be done because our constitution specifically states no laws regarding religion can be made (paraphrased).

Uncodified is the opposite of being an organized document. So the fact you keep saying you have an uncodified constitution just reassures me that you don't have a constitution at all. With that logic, you can say any country that has at least one law regardless if it is written or verbal has an uncodified constitution.

Nothing is stopping you from creating an account so you can post links. Either you're too lazy to do it or you don't know how. But that's your problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: FactCheck. (130 days ago)

The US constitution is an international joke. They have succeeded in changing it a handful of times out of tens of thousands of attempts. They are totally hamstrung by this outdated collection of documents many of which are hopelessly contradictory (Article 10 and 17, articles 18 and 21, etc etc). They don't even ensure the right to vote (just a convention in the US). Even then, there is so much debate and judicial review about how the wording should be interpreted... elected congress try to pass suitable laws only for them to be tied by the Supreme court trying to interpret an historic set of documents written by sexist, racist, rich white guys that weren't elected by any current US citizen. Great democracy! Far better to be like most forward-thinking countries and have a set of legislation that can be easily changed to accommodate the era we are living in.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

The US constitution is an international joke. They have succeeded in changing it a handful of times out of tens of thousands of attempts. They are totally hamstrung by this outdated collection of documents many of which are hopelessly contradictory (Article 10 and 17, articles 18 and 21, etc etc). They don't even ensure the right to vote (just a convention in the US). Even then, there is so much debate and judicial review about how the wording should be interpreted... elected congress try to pass suitable laws only for them to be tied by the Supreme court trying to interpret an historic set of documents written by sexist, racist, rich white guys that weren't elected by any current US citizen. Great democracy! Far better to be like most forward-thinking countries and have a set of legislation that can be easily changed to accommodate the era we are living in.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
FactCheck FactCheck (130 days ago)

I see you're trying to impersonate me as a guest user. It's clear that's not me because it says 'Guest' right before the name as well as a period after the 'FactCheck' part. You must have had a bad childhood to be how you are today. I feel sorry for you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

I see you're trying to impersonate me as a guest user. It's clear that's not me because it says 'Guest' right before the name as well as a period after the 'FactCheck' part. You must have had a bad childhood to be how you are today. I feel sorry for you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: FactCheckThis (130 days ago)

Narcissist much? You must have had a bad upbringing yourself to assume that I am trying to impersonate an anonymous user on BoreMe. I pity anyone who lives up their own backside like you.

Only one thing for it. Trademark your name, and stop everyone from using the term 'Factcheck'.

Or grow the hell up.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Narcissist much? You must have had a bad upbringing yourself to assume that I am trying to impersonate an anonymous user on BoreMe. I pity anyone who lives up their own backside like you.

Only one thing for it. Trademark your name, and stop everyone from using the term 'Factcheck'.

Or grow the hell up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: FactCheck. (130 days ago)

PS: I have considered your feelings carefully and I have decided to now use the name 'FactCheck.' wherever I can. Note it will always have the period on the end and the 'Guest' prefix. I sincerely hope this doesn't cause you further upset.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

PS: I have considered your feelings carefully and I have decided to now use the name 'FactCheck.' wherever I can. Note it will always have the period on the end and the 'Guest' prefix. I sincerely hope this doesn't cause you further upset.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)

OK I don't use this word lightly, but you're actually stupid.

Not having a single document called a constitution isn't the same as not having a constitution. Just look up the word constitution in the dictionary. Ah you won't do that because you're scared of having to accept you're wrong so allow me:

"a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed"

Oh look. Nothing about a single document. Oh dear. Awkward.

So this whole conversation has come about by you not knowing what the word means. At least you won't have to make the same mistake again and contradict dictionaries and encyclopaedias with your spectacular ignorance!

Apology accepted.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

OK I don't use this word lightly, but you're actually stupid.

Not having a single document called a constitution isn't the same as not having a constitution. Just look up the word constitution in the dictionary. Ah you won't do that because you're scared of having to accept you're wrong so allow me:

"a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed"

Oh look. Nothing about a single document. Oh dear. Awkward.

So this whole conversation has come about by you not knowing what the word means. At least you won't have to make the same mistake again and contradict dictionaries and encyclopaedias with your spectacular ignorance!

Apology accepted.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (130 days ago)

The USA has a written constitution, the UK has an unwritten one. Neither is cast in stone, so get over it.

If the US constitution were immutable, it wouldn't have codified amendments (or are you going to pretend that "amendment" doesn't mean "change"?)

And beyond amendments, the US constitution is interpreted in different ways. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" didn't include slaves to begin with.

Abortion wasn't mentioned by the Founding Fathers, what was and was not included in Free Speech has also been interpreted.

So, you have a document which has been added to and interpreted since 1776?

Big deal. We have one that dates from 1215 - and Magna Carta not only set the law above the Crown, it also gave us habeas corpus (something notably absent from the USA's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo).

ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment

The USA has a written constitution, the UK has an unwritten one. Neither is cast in stone, so get over it.

If the US constitution were immutable, it wouldn't have codified amendments (or are you going to pretend that "amendment" doesn't mean "change"?)

And beyond amendments, the US constitution is interpreted in different ways. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" didn't include slaves to begin with.

Abortion wasn't mentioned by the Founding Fathers, what was and was not included in Free Speech has also been interpreted.

So, you have a document which has been added to and interpreted since 1776?

Big deal. We have one that dates from 1215 - and Magna Carta not only set the law above the Crown, it also gave us habeas corpus (something notably absent from the USA's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (130 days ago)

We can change our constitution and the constitution has the rules for how that is done. The President cannot just add an amendment whenever he wants. It must be ratified by 2/3rd of both the House of Representatives and Senate and then 3/4ths of all the states. Can you show me a link in your constitution that explains how your constitution is changed or amended?

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that phrase is not in the constitution. It's a phrase in our declaration of independence. I'm not sure why you're bringing up slaves at all.

Abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution like you say and that's why abortion is legal. But it's more complicated than that because people do have rights and there are different opinions on when life begins. So this issue has been addressed at our Supreme Court and it was decided when you can perform an abortion. This could change if we get new judges with different opinions sometime in the future.

Just so you know, our Constitution was written in 1787. You keep mixing up our declaration of independence that was written in 1776 with our constitution. We celebrate our independence every year on July 4 because we are so happy to be free from the tyrannical government of England. It is a big holiday over here with fireworks and all federal employees get that day off unless they are in critical jobs like air traffic controllers but then they get pay at 1.5 times their salary plus holiday pay (2.5 times their salary total).

I know about the Magna Carta and mentioned it in a previous post. Are you saying then, that the Magna Carta is still a viable document? I don’t think it is but you can correct me if I’m wrong. It was an agreement between your king and rebels. Now that you have a parliment to pass new laws, it sort of renders that document useless. From my understanding, there are only 3 clauses in the Magna Carter that are still valid today. The freedom of the English church, “ancient liberties” of the city of London, and a right to due legal process. So you cannot say that your precious Magna Carta is your constitution because it’s far from being valid.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

We can change our constitution and the constitution has the rules for how that is done. The President cannot just add an amendment whenever he wants. It must be ratified by 2/3rd of both the House of Representatives and Senate and then 3/4ths of all the states. Can you show me a link in your constitution that explains how your constitution is changed or amended?

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that phrase is not in the constitution. It's a phrase in our declaration of independence. I'm not sure why you're bringing up slaves at all.

Abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution like you say and that's why abortion is legal. But it's more complicated than that because people do have rights and there are different opinions on when life begins. So this issue has been addressed at our Supreme Court and it was decided when you can perform an abortion. This could change if we get new judges with different opinions sometime in the future.

Just so you know, our Constitution was written in 1787. You keep mixing up our declaration of independence that was written in 1776 with our constitution. We celebrate our independence every year on July 4 because we are so happy to be free from the tyrannical government of England. It is a big holiday over here with fireworks and all federal employees get that day off unless they are in critical jobs like air traffic controllers but then they get pay at 1.5 times their salary plus holiday pay (2.5 times their salary total).

I know about the Magna Carta and mentioned it in a previous post. Are you saying then, that the Magna Carta is still a viable document? I don’t think it is but you can correct me if I’m wrong. It was an agreement between your king and rebels. Now that you have a parliment to pass new laws, it sort of renders that document useless. From my understanding, there are only 3 clauses in the Magna Carter that are still valid today. The freedom of the English church, “ancient liberties” of the city of London, and a right to due legal process. So you cannot say that your precious Magna Carta is your constitution because it’s far from being valid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (130 days ago)

I stand corrected on the Declaration of Independence. We've already covered the "tyrannical government of England" in another topic. Basically it seems to come down to paying taxes without a representative in Parliament (not exactly Abu Ghraib.)

Is Magna Carta still a "viable document"? Yes, in that it still informs the law (and is part of our unwritten constitution).

I note you term it "your precious Magna Carta". Well yes, over here we think habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial with due process are precious. I do understand that Americans think these are arbitrary, but we take human rights a bit more seriously.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

I stand corrected on the Declaration of Independence. We've already covered the "tyrannical government of England" in another topic. Basically it seems to come down to paying taxes without a representative in Parliament (not exactly Abu Ghraib.)

Is Magna Carta still a "viable document"? Yes, in that it still informs the law (and is part of our unwritten constitution).

I note you term it "your precious Magna Carta". Well yes, over here we think habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial with due process are precious. I do understand that Americans think these are arbitrary, but we take human rights a bit more seriously.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)

The actual phrase "life, liberty and property" is in one of the constitution documents. And you're right, it didn't originally cover slavery.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

The actual phrase "life, liberty and property" is in one of the constitution documents. And you're right, it didn't originally cover slavery.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)

The USA doesn't have a single document as its constitution. It has the bill of rights, the later amendments, Reconstruction amendments etc, and of course the ratification documents (without which the amendments are invalid) and every time anything gets changed (including wording) it is written out again for a new document but the original document is still part of the constitution. On top of that of course there is on all the Judicial reviews, legislation, precedents etc. that suggest various differing ways of interpreting the constitution.

They don't have a constitution that is a single written document, which in the troll's world means they don't have a constitution at all. I guess that's why they can't decide whether it's OK to ban Muslim immigrants or not.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

The USA doesn't have a single document as its constitution. It has the bill of rights, the later amendments, Reconstruction amendments etc, and of course the ratification documents (without which the amendments are invalid) and every time anything gets changed (including wording) it is written out again for a new document but the original document is still part of the constitution. On top of that of course there is on all the Judicial reviews, legislation, precedents etc. that suggest various differing ways of interpreting the constitution.

They don't have a constitution that is a single written document, which in the troll's world means they don't have a constitution at all. I guess that's why they can't decide whether it's OK to ban Muslim immigrants or not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (130 days ago)

We do have a single document as our constitution. It is hosted by many sites but here's one hosted by our own government: LINK

Amendments change or add clauses to the constitution. The original document cannot be changed because it's written in ink. But we are now in the digital era and the digital copies are updated easily.

The judicial review to interpret the constitution is a good idea. If someone in your country wants to do something that you feel is against your weird uncodified thing, what is the process for making a final decision if it is being interpreted correctly? Does the Queen have to get involved to make a decision? Please tell me, I'm dying to know.

The deal about the Muslim immigrants is more complicated than you make it appear. It has to do with Trump's comments while he was campaigning. The actual executive order does not mention Muslims anywhere in it but some people are saying it is a muslim ban because that's what Trump said during his campaign. The supreme court is now trying to decide if what a candidate says during a campaign can be used when determine the legality of a bill or executive order after they become President by interpreting intent. In my opinion from watching the proceedings on TV, they cannot use what someone says verbally to determine the legality of a written document. The words on the document must stand alone regardless of what was said before. It’s the same thing about buying a used car from someone. They can tell you whatever they want about their grandma driving it to church on Sundays but at the end of the day, it’s up to the buyer to look at the contract to see if there is a warranty or if it’s sold as-is. The seller can verbally say it has a warranty but if the sales contract doesn’t say it has one, then the default is that there isn’t one.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

We do have a single document as our constitution. It is hosted by many sites but here's one hosted by our own government: LINK

Amendments change or add clauses to the constitution. The original document cannot be changed because it's written in ink. But we are now in the digital era and the digital copies are updated easily.

The judicial review to interpret the constitution is a good idea. If someone in your country wants to do something that you feel is against your weird uncodified thing, what is the process for making a final decision if it is being interpreted correctly? Does the Queen have to get involved to make a decision? Please tell me, I'm dying to know.

The deal about the Muslim immigrants is more complicated than you make it appear. It has to do with Trump's comments while he was campaigning. The actual executive order does not mention Muslims anywhere in it but some people are saying it is a muslim ban because that's what Trump said during his campaign. The supreme court is now trying to decide if what a candidate says during a campaign can be used when determine the legality of a bill or executive order after they become President by interpreting intent. In my opinion from watching the proceedings on TV, they cannot use what someone says verbally to determine the legality of a written document. The words on the document must stand alone regardless of what was said before. It’s the same thing about buying a used car from someone. They can tell you whatever they want about their grandma driving it to church on Sundays but at the end of the day, it’s up to the buyer to look at the contract to see if there is a warranty or if it’s sold as-is. The seller can verbally say it has a warranty but if the sales contract doesn’t say it has one, then the default is that there isn’t one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)

No, you don't have a single document as your constitution. Just because it's easier to bundle the documents together in a digital format doesn't mean to say it's a single document. I could copy and paste '1984' alongside a collection of Trump's tweets, save it as a pdf and call them a single document. They wouldn't be. The original 4 pages of parchment are still labelled as the constitution, but they're not all of it. Where is the rest? In separate documents and amendments. How do we know which are the valid authority? In further documents called Ratification documents. The sum total of all of these documents is the US constitution, "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed".

In the UK (and most modern countries), we just have courts that analyse the uncodified constitution (including legislation, statutes, precedents, laws, etc. etc), and nearly all parts of them have been adapted, amended or created to suit the current age. We learn from our history without being crippled by it. Unlike the USA, we are not forced into trying to interpret some ancient, outmoded and incomplete set of documents that is next to impossible to change.

PS- look up oral contracts.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

No, you don't have a single document as your constitution. Just because it's easier to bundle the documents together in a digital format doesn't mean to say it's a single document. I could copy and paste '1984' alongside a collection of Trump's tweets, save it as a pdf and call them a single document. They wouldn't be. The original 4 pages of parchment are still labelled as the constitution, but they're not all of it. Where is the rest? In separate documents and amendments. How do we know which are the valid authority? In further documents called Ratification documents. The sum total of all of these documents is the US constitution, "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed".

In the UK (and most modern countries), we just have courts that analyse the uncodified constitution (including legislation, statutes, precedents, laws, etc. etc), and nearly all parts of them have been adapted, amended or created to suit the current age. We learn from our history without being crippled by it. Unlike the USA, we are not forced into trying to interpret some ancient, outmoded and incomplete set of documents that is next to impossible to change.

PS- look up oral contracts.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (131 days ago)

Hi. The UK has an "uncodified constitution". You can even find the details on Wikipedia.

Your welcome.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

Hi. The UK has an "uncodified constitution". You can even find the details on Wikipedia.

Your welcome.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)

He doesn't get it, and I can't make it simpler.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

He doesn't get it, and I can't make it simpler.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)

He gets the fact you're a prick though.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

He gets the fact you're a prick though.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (130 days ago)

And the rest of us now get the fact that CUncernedCitizen uses sock puppets.

Like we didn't already know.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

And the rest of us now get the fact that CUncernedCitizen uses sock puppets.

Like we didn't already know.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: FactCheck. (130 days ago)

Looks like we've uncovered another, Scotty!

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Looks like we've uncovered another, Scotty!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Bill Clinton talks aliens
Bill Clinton talks aliens
Gordon Ramsay learns how to make cocaine
Gordon Ramsay learns how to make cocaine
Harvey Weinstein body language
Harvey Weinstein body language
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump furious with consequences of his policies
David Pakman - Trump furious with consequences of his policies