[Adam Elgar]

I've never understood why people say the UK doesn't have a constitution, or even why they say we don't have a written one. Ours is probably the largest written constitution in the world. It just wasn't written down in one time or place. It's evolved over centuries. It may lack clarity and be prone to ambiguity, but it doesn't enslave us the way more recently composed constitutions can, which codify the needs and assumptions of a particular body of framers.

[Ed Shacklee]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

But she knew her son was weird and it might have occurred to her that locking up the guns and not telling him where the key was, was quite a good idea. On the other hand, since she was pretty wll barking herself, perhaps it is not surprising.

I don't know if this assessment fits the poor woman in question or not; either the facts haven't been established yet, or I haven't seen them. But the description does seem to fit us as a country. We know there is a sprinkling of madmen among us who every now and then will commit an atrocity like this, and yet we don't lock up the guns. I point the finger at myself and my fellow citizens. All I can say is, I will push for change and vote for it.

Ed

[John Whitworth]

Yes, Adam, that's what 's so good about it. But lately we've taken to messing about with European stuff we should never have touched with a bargepole, stuff written by people who have no idea of the difference between civil rights and human rights. I think it was actually English lawyers who wrote it but I wouldn't trust any lawyer farther than I could throw him. Good God, I'd rather trust a politician or a journalist. Or a poet of course.

Ed, I assure you the woman was nuts. She thought the world was going to end on Tuesday. Or so my Daily Telegraph says.

[Nigel Mace]

Ah... Adam, we (UK) certainly do not have a constitution only a mixture of conventions and rather uncertain legal frameworks which, so far from liberating us, leave us, in constitutional terms, as subjects first and foremost, and citizens only some legislative way behind. Within the UK there are indeed fundamental differences of constitutional principle even including that of sovereignty, which in England and Wales resides in the person of the sovereign, conventionaly as expressed in parliament - hence, and only hence, the doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament - whereas in Scotland sovereignty resides in the Scottish people - hence Queens of England but Queens of Scots.

And a note to quell your optimism Janice - a comparison of Magna Carta with the Declaration of Arbroath makes the differences in our constitutional development still clearer.

All a bit of a digression from this thread, but the constitutional 'problems' supposedly involved in this debate about gun laws in the US, shouldn't be an excuse for transatlantic self-congratulation. Just think of the ghastly Blair's abuse of the prerogatives of the Crown in taking us to war in Iraq! The American constitutional framers, of all different persuasions, were in the best of European - as opposed to conservative English traditions - seeking to base their practices upon sound general principles, which as a Scot (and thus from the European cultural tradition) I applaud. The fact that self-interested parties have chosen to distort the meaning of the Second Amendment with ludicrous and disastrous consequences does not invalidate the nature of that effort nor its documents.

John - Your Europhobia rather makes my point. The Tory Europhobes complain of the results of European Court rulings etc. precisely because they cannot stomach a system based on general principles and yearn for the good old days when these could be ignored and trampled on as best suited the interests of the political class whose precedents they have always valued above principle. Cameron's confused threats to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention have displayed exactly that irritated confusion which arises from not understanding a system which is mainly rational and not mainly customary.

Oh - and I became a historian rather than a lawyer because I didn't much like them either!

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Adam Elgar

I've never understood why people say the UK doesn't have a constitution, or even why they say we don't have a written one. Ours is probably the largest written constitution in the world. It just wasn't written down in one time or place. It's evolved over centuries.

Adam,

Interesting point. And yet, what you guys across the pond have seems to work for you... and for us as well. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard an American lawyer cite "English Common Law" in an argument, I could retire to Belize.

The other nice thing about what you have: it's constantly evolving. Here, we have a kind of unthinking fetishization of the original document. Don's right, it's kind of like the bible... people take it as an article of faith when it suits their own interests, but tend not to focus on the contradictions. For example, our constitution says a black man is worth three fifths of a human being. There are lots of other things like that, and yet people hold it up as some kind of glorious document.

But your system clearly works better. When you had a similar crisis something like a decade ago, you solved it. We don't seem to be able to do that, at least we haven't so far. Why? Here's what we're facing:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-profits.html

That link details the ownership chain and political affiliations of the folks who make the Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle. There are no surprises there, it is exactly what anyone would expect. But it does show this isn't about rights at all. It's about short term profits, and the legal system that supports them. So much for government of the people, by the people, for the people...

Peace,

Bill
(p.s. I also wish we had something like your prime minister's question time. If we had, some of the people who were elected here would never have made it to higher office...

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Originally Posted by W.F. Lantry

I also wish we had something like your prime minister's question time. If we had, some of the people who were elected here would never have made it to higher office...

Never has there been a more generously limiting use of the word some.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Bill, thanks for the link.

Here is another from the same source.

13-Year-Old Cristian Fernandez Will Face Life Without Parole for Killing Brother, Court Rules

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...obref=obinsite

Any judicial system that puts a 13-year old on trial FOR ANY reason is not part of the civilized world.

Society at large is responsibile for this terrible and terribly sad deed. This is what a nation of gun-lovers and violence-worshipers turns out.

We are living in a new Dark Ages. Small children put on trial for their lives, the persons that should be on trial beside that child is the manufacturers of the weapon and those lawmakers who allowed it to come into the hands of the boy.

The strange thing is that I (and nearly everyone I know) think the American people are wonderful, friendly and kind people. Just the day before yesterday when I was shoveling snow when I got into a conversation with a lady I had not seen before. She was carrying a big tote bag patterned like an American flag and spent at least half an hour telling me how much she loved America. I love her too, but like Leonard Cohen

I love the country but I can't stand the scene.

Spoken word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5tF3Xg7A8k

or if you would rather hear it sung.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

[Marcia Karp]

Originally Posted by Janice D. Soderling

Small children put on trial for their lives, the persons that should be on trial beside that child is the manufacturers of the weapon and those lawmakers who allowed it to come into the hands of the boy.

What weapon?

[Paul Stevens]

If an ultra-right-wing Aussie troglodyte like John Howard (George W.'s greatest admirer) can do it, surely an alleged leftie like Obama can find the balls to actually LEAD on disarming your unfortunate nation!

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...731-23ct7.html

"These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws."

Also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-australia/

[Janice D. Soderling]

Marcia, you are right. I conflated. So weird, I should not do two intellectual things at one and the same time which I've been doing all day both under a bit of a press. You would be a diligent and fair-minded officer of the law. I'm being sincere, not snide.


Nigel. I am not knowledgeable about all history. I only know, or think I know, that the Magma Carta was pertinent to England's consitutional law, written and unwritten. Like the American constitution, it won legal force.

There is far more that I don't know than what I do know. I'm still working at it. I have a little book on Robert the Bruce, so I'll dig it out and read up. Thanks for the nudge.

And a note to quell your optimism Janice - a comparison of Magna Carta with the Declaration of Arbroath makes the differences in our constitutional development still clearer.