Thursday, March 11, 2004
The Constitution of Britain
The mother of parliamentary rows
The title of this article is apt (and the whole thing should be read); all the major fights for constitutional reform in Britian have been between the House of Lords and House of Commons. Just such a fight may occur now, although the outcome, if the battle continues, has been decided for a century.
The House of Lords has sent a bill that would create a Supreme Court of sorts for Britian (although it wouldn't have the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional) has been sent back to commitee, making it's passage before the next election unlikely. This has enraged Blair, who wants this reform badly. Blair may envoke the Parliament Act, a law passed nearly a century ago during another tusstle between the two houses over constitutional reform in which the Lords finally lost their power, which allows the House of Commons to bypass the House of Lords and make a law without consulting them.
This fight is bringing to light, as the Economist adequately explains, the creaking nature of the British Constitution, an unwritten agreement of tradition and liberal (classical) sense that helped to create one of the finest democracies in the world.
Should Britian have a written constitution like other major countries in the world (and even Afghanistand and Iraq)? Unless Britians want to keep putting their faith in a governent that is only liberal because of tradition, and keep hoping that it won't start to usurp their freedoms like the monarchs did in the past (Charles' Star Chamber is a famous example), then they should support the creation of a real constitution. By putting everything in writing the system will not be dependent on the whims of Parliament and her ministers, but on the rule of law.
Tradition is valuable, but one shouldn't put ones life and liberty in the balance just to preserve antiquated customs.
The title of this article is apt (and the whole thing should be read); all the major fights for constitutional reform in Britian have been between the House of Lords and House of Commons. Just such a fight may occur now, although the outcome, if the battle continues, has been decided for a century.
The House of Lords has sent a bill that would create a Supreme Court of sorts for Britian (although it wouldn't have the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional) has been sent back to commitee, making it's passage before the next election unlikely. This has enraged Blair, who wants this reform badly. Blair may envoke the Parliament Act, a law passed nearly a century ago during another tusstle between the two houses over constitutional reform in which the Lords finally lost their power, which allows the House of Commons to bypass the House of Lords and make a law without consulting them.
This fight is bringing to light, as the Economist adequately explains, the creaking nature of the British Constitution, an unwritten agreement of tradition and liberal (classical) sense that helped to create one of the finest democracies in the world.
Should Britian have a written constitution like other major countries in the world (and even Afghanistand and Iraq)? Unless Britians want to keep putting their faith in a governent that is only liberal because of tradition, and keep hoping that it won't start to usurp their freedoms like the monarchs did in the past (Charles' Star Chamber is a famous example), then they should support the creation of a real constitution. By putting everything in writing the system will not be dependent on the whims of Parliament and her ministers, but on the rule of law.
Tradition is valuable, but one shouldn't put ones life and liberty in the balance just to preserve antiquated customs.
Comments:
Post a Comment
