[thecrimsonidol]

(Original post by Norton1)
The great weight of opinion suggests that it can, I would site this argument in the realm of taxonomy; what are the factors we need to identify to call something a constitution? I think the only thing that Britain would lack would be a written document. It seems almost a triumph of the clerks to say that only something neat, tidy and all together in one place is valid. We're not German for God's sake.

I'm inclined to agree with you, and as I said I do feel we have an unwritten one. I think the main problem, for me at least, is the fact that due to its nature the constitution is not a set system of rules/principles as you might expect it to be. SInce it is made of laws and statutes primarily, the fact these constatly develop and overrule eachother means that the constitution itself is not easily fixed. Granted with a written constitution you can make changes, but I think it's different in that such changes are rarer and are nowhere near as common as the ones ours has is.

So yeah, I do generally agree we have an (unwritten) constitution, but it's far from free from criticism.

[thecrimsonidol]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)

However, if you look to subtstance and consider in the UK there are surely rules that govern how the state operates, you must accept that a written constitution exists, albeit one that has developed over time in multiple documents.

Interesting argument, but i'd say that none of those individually make a constitution as such....they are a series of written rules which collectively form an unwritten constitution. If that makes any sense...

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
Interesting argument, but i'd say that none of those individually make a constitution as such....they are a series of written rules which collectively form an unwritten constitution. If that makes any sense...

I don't think the fact that no one document contains the entire body of constitutional law in our country precludes a collection of documents from forming a body of law.

Nobody would suggest that if all our criminal laws, all of the law of contract, the law of tort, land, equity, trusts etc were not enumerated in one document that individual decisions in cases and individual statutes were not law - so why is it an issue in constitutional law?

Law in all areas grows and develops - it is eminently sensible to allow multiple documents to form part of the constitution.

Even if you think about the US, the Constitution isn't the only constitutional document. They have literally dozens of amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

The original constitution as drafted is now only part of the constitutution of the US.

[AYO]

WHO IS THIS RANDOM PERSON THAT NEGGED THE FIRST FEW COMMENTS??!
so peeved!

[Zedd]

(Original post by AYO)
WHO IS THIS RANDOM PERSON THAT NEGGED THE FIRST FEW COMMENTS??!
so peeved!

Hey, I just negged you,
and this is crazy,
but it's the internet,
so chill out, maybe?

[AYO]

(Original post by Zedd)
Hey, I just negged you,
and this is crazy,
but it's the internet,
so chill out, maybe?

very true, i definitely wasnt as angry as that comment appeared.

my apologies, its just the internet.

its just annoying when you try and make a positive thread and get negged for no apparent reason. ah well, c'est la vie.