Roe v Wade

I read that Joe Biden disapproved of the Roe v Wade ruling in around 1974, and said that "women do not have the sole right to say what should happen to their bodies". He later changed his views.

There was a time in USA history, long before Roe v Wade, when abortion was legal, although it probably wasn't particularly safe. When doctors – obstetricians and gynaecologists – superseded midwives as primary carers for women's health, it became illegal. Coincidentally, of course, those obstetricians and gynaecologists were all men.

By the way, the argument that the Constitution doesn't mention abortion is a red herring. The Constitution doesn't mention women at all.

Glorianny Re: Thu 05-May-22 08:33:10

Why would you expect the constituion of the UK, where the earliest Kingdom was recognised in the 9th Century, to look like that of America? America is not yet 250 years old. You are saying that your unsubstantiated opinion overrides the fact that the law and history recognise our Constitution.

The United Kingdom, famously and almost uniquely, does not have a constitution that is contained in a written constitutional instrument. Its constitution is to be found in the statutes passed by Parliament and in the common law, the law developed over the centuries in the decisions of the courts. [Source: The Justice System and the Constitution. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary]

You are repeating an unfounded opinion when you have been told the facts. Any such opinion is inferior and bogus unless and until you have facts to support it. I have patiently tried to explain. There is no point in continuing this.

Hi Glorianny I found this on the internet from a reliable source, sorry I can't remember where. It appears what we don't have is a written codified constitution in a single document so to some extent I'd say you are both correct. ItI said much further up that we didn't have a written constitution, which is what I think most of thought. Hey Ho!
"The UK is often said to have an ‘unwritten’ constitution. This is not strictly correct. It is largely written, but in different documents. But it has never been codified, brought together in a single document. In this respect, the UK is different from most other countries, which have codified constitutions. But not all: New Zealand and Israel also lack a codified constitution.

Daisy Anne does not have a constitution that is contained in a written constitutional instrument
QED I think

Urmonstongran, congrats! Of all the texts on this thread, you are the one who got it right.

foxie48

Hi Glorianny I found this on the internet from a reliable source, sorry I can't remember where. It appears what we don't have is a written codified constitution in a single document so to some extent I'd say you are both correct. ItI said much further up that we didn't have a written constitution, which is what I think most of thought. Hey Ho!
"The UK is often said to have an ‘unwritten’ constitution. This is not strictly correct. It is largely written, but in different documents. But it has never been codified, brought together in a single document. In this respect, the UK is different from most other countries, which have codified constitutions. But not all: New Zealand and Israel also lack a codified constitution.

Thank you for trying foxie but we are not "both correct". You have just repeated much of what I said and Glorianny has disagreed with.

I've had quite enough of what I now think is a wind-up.

There are some who should remember that "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak (or in this case type) and remove all doubt.

That’s some validation happycatholicwife! Thank you ?

Glorianny

*Daisy Anne* does not have a constitution that is contained in a written constitutional instrument
QED I think

The UK legal system works on case law and precedent. This is why it is so important that every departure from precedent by the current PM and the current Governmet is so momentous - they set a precedent to be referred to when in future leaders try departures even further from the UK ethos.

The UK has no FAT SINGLE PACKAGE containing a dated document labelled "Constitution". However, this does not mean it has no written constitution. It just means that various aspects of it are in different documents, depending on when and by whom they were created. Every law and court decision that has ever been made, ever since written records have existed, is there in black and white and is available for consultation. The rules that were laid down for a conastitutional monarch are there, as are the criminal and civil law and anything else that governs how the state and the individual interact. among other sources, Hansard records the proceedings in Parliament, and the records of trials record the legal points raised and the verdicts reached.

For instance, there is a full record of the decision of the Scottish Law Lords that Johnson was at fault for using a procedure to prorogue Parliament early to avoid further debate on the controversial Brexit Bill - which became an Act when he shortened the deadline for more talks on it. If anyone else tries that route to get their pet legislation through without due consideration by all of a free Parliament, that record is there to deter them.

Thus it is not only a snapshot of the machinery of state at one moment of time, but also a record of the discussions that went on in forming those laws and regulations, and the arguments behind the decisions.

Beautifully written Elegran.

This The UK has no FAT SINGLE PACKAGE containing a dated document labelled "Constitution". However, this does not mean it has no written constitution. seems to echo what I was saying, i.e., that we have a written constitution but not a codified constitution. This for the very reason that our laws have been in the making over so many centuries.

Of course there are laws and precedents as with any civilised state but the idea that the role of the monarch for example is as neatly set out or as clear as a written constitution would require it to be is simply untrue. Look up "Queen's consent" something which was regarded by many as a purely pageantry related matter until it was revealed that it had been used by the Queen in the 1970s to obtain special considerations for her. It was something constitutional scholars had to investigate and of course it is there as a legislative matter. But most people only know about Royal assent which is simply the monarch signing legislation passed by parliament.
Most people who lobby for a single paper constitution use the terms codified and written for that document and do not regard one as being different to the other. Quite why DaisyAnne you have chosen to make this so confrontational and been so personally abusive I have no idea. The fact remains there is no single document constitution call it codified or written as you wish the two words seem to be interchangeable
The Financial times on why Britain needs a written constitution
www.ft.com/content/bf81ea49-96b0-4329-bbaf-f58fdf6e0630

The two terms are not interchangeable. Much of our constitution is written. None of it is codified. I studied constitutional law so do know a bit about the subject.

Germanshepherdsmum

The two terms are not interchangeable. Much of our constitution is written. None of it is codified. I studied constitutional law so do know a bit about the subject.

The Financial Times uses them as such GSM Are you an expert in constitutional law now? I thought you were a solicitor.

If a single document is written it is a written constitution how can it not be? If it is codified as well it is a codified written constitution. Presumably you can't have one document without it being written and it would need to be codified. Therefore you can't have one without the other. Nothing to do with law constitutional or not. It's the language. If the constitution is codified it needs to be written. It is therefore a written constitution.

I read constitutional law en route to getting my professional qualifications. I assure you that ‘written’ and ‘codified’ are not one and the same. Codification consists of placing all elements of constitutional law, written and unwritten, in one single document.

Germanshepherdsmum

I read constitutional law en route to getting my professional qualifications. I assure you that ‘written’ and ‘codified’ are not one and the same. Codification consists of placing all elements of constitutional law, written and unwritten, in one single document.

And how do you produce that document?

I would have thought it pretty obvious. But an extremely complex and time consuming, and thus horrendously costly, task for expert constitutional lawyers to undertake so unlikely to happen any time soon. Personally I wouldn’t be in favour. Our present system is flexible and has worked for centuries.

Germanshepherdsmum

The two terms are not interchangeable. Much of our constitution is written. None of it is codified. I studied constitutional law so do know a bit about the subject.

Good luck. We are obviously missing something in the way Glorianny is thinking about this. I cannot work out what.

Germanshepherdsmum

I would have thought it pretty obvious. But an extremely complex and time consuming, and thus horrendously costly, task for expert constitutional lawyers to undertake so unlikely to happen any time soon. Personally I wouldn’t be in favour. Our present system is flexible and has worked for centuries.

Actually you could just have said it will have to be written but good try at obfuscation

DaisyAnne I'm quite willing to acknowledge that any written constitution would have to be codified I wonder why you find it difficult to acknowledge that it would also have to be written?Both are necessary.

Try reading the Financial Times article. It might help both of you

I'm sorry Glorianny but a written constitution does not have to be codified.

No one is trying to obfuscate and that is a might insulting when people are trying to help.

I think you are simplifying something which, by its very nature, is not simple.

You said previously: "Presumably you can't have one document without it being written and it would need to be codified

The documents backing a constitution are written, yes. They are not one document though; they are a body of documents. A very, very large body of documents.

Separate to that, you may have a codified Constitution. Having this is not necessary, it is a choice. Perhaps you could consider it to be the index or summary to the body of documents. (It's not but it's a useful analogy) We are not the only country which doesn't have one.

When it comes to making changes to the constitution, all countries, whether they have codified their Constitution or not, will need to consult the body of documents.

(Happy to have corrections or additions GSM)

The codified constitution would be a distillation into one document of the written records which form the (uncodified) constitution now in use. I for one don't follow Glorianny's logic that because it is not in a neat lump all cemented into one piece, it is therefore non-existent.

Another point I'd make is that "the 5th amendment" is a reference to the constitution of the USA. It doesn't exist under that name anywhere in the UK. The accused can, of course, say nothing at their trial except to answer to their name and to plead either guilty or not guilty (though that can put the thought into the minds of a jury that there is nothing they can say that would be a defence)

There are many areas where the general perception of the public is that things in the Uk correspond exactly to what they see and hear in programmes made in the US for US viewers (and that if they don't, they ought to). There is the Medical Examiner, for instance, who seems to directly conduct investigations into murders, which in the UK is the job of the police force, not the coroner.

You are absolutely correct DaisyAnne. I don’t understand why Glorianny* is having such problems with this.

I don't have problems with it. I simply question a constitution which is said to exist but which has manifestly been shown (as in the 1970s actions of the RF) not to actually be fully understood or recognised by any but a few constitutional law experts, and then only because some clever solicitor used it to facilitate advantages for the RF, which no one actually believed could be still applicable. Of course there are numerous documents, laws and statutes, but pretending anyone really appreciates or understands them as any sort of a basis for a real constitution or that they in some way make up a genuine constitution understandable to all is just ridiculous. As is the concept that because something has existed for a long time it must be good. All of the countries now with written constitutions had similar histories of laws and statutes The number of countries without proper constitutions are now very few.
But for the experts like GSM perhaps these words should apply
But, critically, this wealth of accumulated paper and parchment has not been sieved and condensed into a single codified constitution. Even for legal experts, it can be hard therefore to get a firm grip on how the UK is governed — and on how it should be governed. In the words of the late law lord, Tom Bingham, constitutionally, the UK operates “in a trackless desert without map or compass”.

I haven’t claimed to be an expert Glorianny, merely someone who has studied (and passed a rigorous exam on) the subject. I really don’t understand why this is exercising your mind to such an extent. The British constitution is not codified, nor is it likely to be within our lifetimes. It is nevertheless a ‘proper’ and entirely functional constitution, which you seem unable to grasp. If you are desperate to read up on the subject I can recommend some excellent books which are enormously helpful if you suffer from insomnia. I can honestly say it was by far the driest, most boring of all the fields of law I studied.

If you think a constitution is something which is only accessible, usable or understandable by a few highly paid litigators and therefore only able to be used by the very rich then you would of course regard us as having a constitution. Personally I think it should be something clearly set out and not reliant on research into archaic and little used statutes which have been largely forgotten. And a law lord plainly thought it was not functional. Just because you studied it doesn't mean others are not entitled to agree with this. Although I can see that as with many matters some legal professionals prefer to have the law less clearly set out.