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?
Perhaps not but if the King himself cannot make laws why would his secretary be able to? I don't think DOJ memos should carry that weight either, but the agency itself is not ceremonial like the king supposedy is.
Well, according the article there was much recent debate about whether it granted the Queen authority to decline to hold an early election. Just seems very strange to me. It's as if Richard Nixon's maid published an article in Good Housekeeping suggesting he had the right to serve a third term, and then Bill Clinton attempted to run again on that authority.
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?
Not so different that the us where internal DOJ memos about the ability to prosecute the president are effectively deffered to by the whole system.
Perhaps not but if the King himself cannot make laws why would his secretary be able to? I don't think DOJ memos should carry that weight either, but the agency itself is not ceremonial like the king supposedy is.
I'm presuming it's more that they suggested a policy and no one objected so it became kinda the default but maybe I'm wrong.
Well, according the article there was much recent debate about whether it granted the Queen authority to decline to hold an early election. Just seems very strange to me. It's as if Richard Nixon's maid published an article in Good Housekeeping suggesting he had the right to serve a third term, and then Bill Clinton attempted to run again on that authority.
Ohh, I didn't fully understand that does seem really strange.