That’s just because the R’s expressly don’t care about constitutionality. If the UK had a written constitution, both parties are still at a level of integrity where they’d want to (at least appear to) be keeping it, so a judicial challenge to these terrorist acts might have actually struck them down.
The Democrats don’t care about the Constitution either. Their platform certainly isn’t filled with promises to say, repeal the post 9/11 mass surveillance laws. They have zero interest in curtailing the powers of an out-of-control presidency; they just want those powers for themselves.
There’s still a judicial challenge happening. And just because the UK doesn’t have written constitution doesn’t mean there’s no constitution at all. Most of it is even written down, just not in one place.
Hmm true, there is the ECHR. But it is implemented into british law in such a way that there’s nothing stopping laws being passed which are incompatible with it. Whereas with the US and other constitutions you have judicial review.
That’s not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that’s with a written constitution. There’s also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the “state council”), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It’s convention that that advice is followed, but it’s not required.
It’s so much easier for the frog to not realize it’s being boiled in the UK because there’s no consolidated constitution to point to
Not sure that matters too much, frogs in the US are boiling fine too. The constitution can be brushed aside just as easily.
Can verify : am frog
One frog may feel powerless but many frogs together strong.
That’s just because the R’s expressly don’t care about constitutionality. If the UK had a written constitution, both parties are still at a level of integrity where they’d want to (at least appear to) be keeping it, so a judicial challenge to these terrorist acts might have actually struck them down.
The Democrats don’t care about the Constitution either. Their platform certainly isn’t filled with promises to say, repeal the post 9/11 mass surveillance laws. They have zero interest in curtailing the powers of an out-of-control presidency; they just want those powers for themselves.
That’s because they lose their bargaining chips for elections, also being wealthy , that why they don’t reverse the tax cuts with the next preisdent
There’s still a judicial challenge happening. And just because the UK doesn’t have written constitution doesn’t mean there’s no constitution at all. Most of it is even written down, just not in one place.
Hmm true, there is the ECHR. But it is implemented into british law in such a way that there’s nothing stopping laws being passed which are incompatible with it. Whereas with the US and other constitutions you have judicial review.
That’s not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that’s with a written constitution. There’s also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the “state council”), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It’s convention that that advice is followed, but it’s not required.
Except when it comes to trans people. Judicial review doesn’t apply to trans people.