Even better approach: do it like the British. An 'unwritten' constitution. No need to even have a document for the plebs to read and criticize. Whatever gets a majority in Parliament ends up being the so-called constitution.
EDIT: And because I watched it on Sunday. Remember as always ENGLAND PREVAILS!
So, the things you like in a constitution are not set-in-stone and can be overturned, but so can the things you don't like.
Statutes can always be tossed or repealed, but our rights may only be overturned via amendment (Gödel's hack).
Unfortunately we've not had anyone who respects our liberty for some time. It's a shame - I think the 'loose arrangements/don't be legal-heavy' approach is what brings the most freedom, you're let alone and the common law governs interactions only when necessary. I am sure someone can point out why it isn't perfect but it is much more preferable to many other governments.
Now that feeling that the government is more on our backs is growing. (Online "safety" bill? What in Blighty!? Who asked you to decide what was "safe" for me??)
Interesting to see how it plays out conversely in the US, where it was all written down in what the founders thought was unambiguous language, but now the goal is to stuff the Supreme Court with judges who will interpret the constitution with a bias towards the way your side prefers.
Magna Carta II: It's Time For Payback.
No. What happens is that successive acts of Parliament overrule more and more of Magna Carta, until there's only one or two clauses still in effect.
When we say "The UK doesn't have a constitution", we mean that there are no laws governing what legislation Parliament can enact, other than international treaties; and those can be repudiated even without any act of Parliament - a treaty can be revoked by stroke of the executive pen.
"This is because Latin doesn’t have articles; as a result, the Latin phrase “Magna Carta” doesn’t require a “The” in front of it. "
Seems to me the grammar police are overstepping their jurisdiction and we're going to have to get the interlingual grammar courts involved to sort this out.
Hope they do it soon, because English lets its speakers participate in government and this Latin sounds like a threat to democracy.
> [F3 (5A) In a householder case, the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate in those circumstances.]
> (6) [F4 In a case other than a householder case,] the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.
does not “give householders carte blanche in the degree of force they use against intruders in self-defence” (ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43652308) – in essence, making the legal situation basically the same as before this amendment was made. (Apparently the lawmakers didn't quite understand how a “self-defence” legal defence worked in court, when they were writing this one up.) As I understand, as of the ruling, there's no legal distinction between “disproportionate force” and “grossly disproportionate force”.
Sure, the High Court didn't overturn it… except for the part where they basically did. They also “quashed with prospective effect” an amendment to primary legislation (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) made by a statutory instrument (The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014). There are many other instances of primary legislation on the books that manifestly say one thing, but that according to the High Court mean something different.
[1] https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/10/18/michael-foran-par...
Not that I'm claiming the US model is inferior in some way, of course. Constitutional questions are complex and heavily dependent on a country's history and culture. One apparent weakness of the US system is that enormous power is placed in the hands of a group of unelected officials, appointed and approved by the current executive and legislature, who then wield that power for life. I could make that point by pointing out that the law on one of the most contentious issues, abortion, has been determined for decades by the partisan composition of the supreme court rather than by public opinion. I could say something like "the US constitution is there to prevent the hoi polloi having a say" but it wouldn't make any point worth making or lead to a reasoned discussion. The issue is rather more nuanced than that.