Hacker News Reader

Comment by NeoTar | Hacker News Reader

Yep. One of the strengths of the British Constitution is also one of its weaknesses - under the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty "[the parliament] may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law or by precedent. "

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.

View on HN

It all depends on the rulers respecting the spirit of the law more than twisting and revising the letter until it becomes oppressive.

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.

Yeah, in the U.S. the people retain sovereignty instead, and our Constitution, the first codified constitution in history, provides a narrow set of powers for the federal government that serves us, written after we defeated the most powerful empire up to that point near the peak of their power in the first successful war of independence.

Statutes can always be tossed or repealed, but our rights may only be overturned via amendment (Gödel's hack).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com