Hacker News Reader

Comment by jowea | Hacker News Reader

The UK doesn't have an entrenched constitution through. Whenever there's a simple parliamentary majority for a reform in the lower house it can be done. In the US even simple laws can require a filibuster breaking supermajority in the upper change, and changing the constitution is much harder.

View on HN

The Charter of Liberties is still regularly referenced in UK law. Just because the system is Common Law, does not mean it is not entrenched.

I'd suggest the US' adoption of a 2-party system likely leads to far more of that stagnation.

But that's more because they want to keep the charter, no? I mean that keeping the UK constitution "living" is much easier since the written parts can be legally changed easily. And the 2 party system is a result of US electoral and constitutional law, which is entrenched. If the US had a new constitution from scratch today I don't think it would feature the electoral college, it's there because of legal inertia.

So... The charter is an older law, than the USA's existence, right?

Yes, but I'm not arguing the US Constitution is older than the UK one, although it is much older than that of almost all countries I think. I'm arguing that the UK doesn't suffer from having an old constitution because its constitution changes more easily than the US one.

Ok... But that's not what _I_ addressed in my comment. The US doesn't operate with the oldest laws on the books.

Then I guess we were arguing past each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com