Seems like there is a great deal of danger in codifying a skelatal constitution. The problem is that by placing certain rules into this constitution you will (no matter what it says to the contrary) inevitably make it less of a big deal to violate the norms and conventions not in it.
Look at the US 9th ammendment. We put in an explicit ammendment that would seem to say: just bc it's not in the constitution doesn't mean you should give it any less weight. So you might have thought the US system would develop just like the UK system but with some extra guardrails. Not so! Despite what the 9th says the fact that things aren't mentioned in the constitution absolutely gives them less weight.
So maybe you need a written constitution but I'm not sure you can get away with a skelatal one.
I confess I do not understand your system at all. Why on earth would a letter to the editor devised by the private secretary to King George VI be considered the law of the land?
As I tell my rightwing friends clamoring for a convention of states, be careful what you wish for.
Seems like there is a great deal of danger in codifying a skelatal constitution. The problem is that by placing certain rules into this constitution you will (no matter what it says to the contrary) inevitably make it less of a big deal to violate the norms and conventions not in it.
Look at the US 9th ammendment. We put in an explicit ammendment that would seem to say: just bc it's not in the constitution doesn't mean you should give it any less weight. So you might have thought the US system would develop just like the UK system but with some extra guardrails. Not so! Despite what the 9th says the fact that things aren't mentioned in the constitution absolutely gives them less weight.
So maybe you need a written constitution but I'm not sure you can get away with a skelatal one.
I confess I do not understand your system at all. Why on earth would a letter to the editor devised by the private secretary to King George VI be considered the law of the land?