American Reacts to the UK's Constitution Explained 

UNconstitutional means in violation of a constitution, NON-constitutional means not relevant to a constitution.

Our "constitution" is a living breathing thing and therefore is capable of adapting to societal changes (unlike in the USA).

The British constitution evolves, changes as time passes, keeps up to date, unlike the American constitution which is stuck in the 17th century. Which is why the British people enjoy more freedoms than our American cousins.

Going to have to disagree with at least one thing the guy said in the video. There is a very big legal factor that would prevent parliament from creating a totalitarian state - the Monarch. While the King by modern convention cannot flex his power, he does still retain ultimate power. Parliament only rules with his permission. No law - literally none - passes as a law without the Kings signature. The Queen was actually known to have delayed a couple laws passing (on the advice of her advisors - not purely on a whim). While the King cannot really refuse to sign the majority of laws because the people would not stand for it and it would create a constitutional crisis, the people would absolutely support him in refusing to sign into law a law that stripped all power from the people and created a totalatarian state. The King does have the power to disolve Parliament at any time as well. Plus the armed forces pledge allegiance to the Monarch - the King is their commander in chief and he can order them to stand down, so Parliament cannot even use the armed forces in order to seize ultimate power. Checks and balances. People ask why we still need a Monarch - well that would be one of very many good reasons why the Monarch is still needed - he is our ultimate safeguard against a totalatarian state. And as it has already been pointed out, becoming a republic and having a written constitution does away with something I personally find very important - our flexibility and ability to modernise our laws without being bound by words that written years ago that do not apply to ever evolving world in the same way.

Tyler, the USA in the 21st century is being run on the basis of a document written in the 18th century and only occasionally amended since. The British constitution has elements dating back to the 13th century and before, but has been, and is being, continually amended, updated and expanded in order to take account of changing circumstances and new developments. Which approach do you think is likely to work better?

We allow our constitution to evolve. It seems to work better than writing it all down in stone for all time.

in my lifetime... if you were arrested for murder it was 'contrary to common law' which simply means it has always been illegal... pre magna carta

Uncodified just means there is no single document that encompasses the entire constitution but rather many individual documents (within the four categories mentioned) that when pooled together act as the UK constitution.

The Irish constitution gets changed, with the public voting on it. Because we know that times change and old laws might not be appropriate. Unlike America where they somehow think it's amazing and can't change

the US Constitution said Trump should not be allowed to appear on the next election's ballot but the Supreme Court just ignored the Constitution and let him, so the US Constitution only means what it says when specific people like what it says

Little said about Magna Carta but that is the basis of English Law and it was the main thinking behind the American Constitution

We aren’t in America and Tyler needs to realise that not every country wants to be like America. We have done OK with our un codified constitution for a long long time

Prior to the UK Supreme Court, the final arbiters were the Law Lords (the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary) who were a bunch of folks sitting as Peers in the House of Lords. In olden days, the House of Lords itself was the final court of appeal.

When I was at university, in the international law library there were copies of the constitutions of every country. When it came to the UK, there wasn’t just a gap, but rather a number of volumes containing those laws and other instruments that make up the UK constitution. Whilst there wasn’t an official UK Supreme Court until 2005, until then the House of Lords was the ‘supreme court’.

Just for the record, Bagehot's "The English Constitution" is NOT "The English Constitution" (!) its just a book published in the 19th C by Walter Bagehot. Walter Bagehot did not have any particular authority, he was just a journalist, who wrote down his understanding of how the constitution worked...and this book has become persuasive, having been quoted with approval in many court cases. Same goes for Dicey's (much more modern) book - its just a textbook that is seen as authoritative. But neither book has the force of law, its just that they are both seen as broadly accurate summations of the constitutional position (ie, the combined effects of statutes, case law, conventions, etc).

Thank God - we are not trapped by ancient laws designed to operate in a world that disappeared hundreds of years ago and which is now irrelavent for the modern day. American gun law is a good example. At the time the phrase "bear arms" undoubtably meant the right to join a militia for defence of the country, as there was no standing Army. But they are now trapped by people who point to this line in their constitution.

The Emglish Constitution is a book about the Constitution, not a Constitution in itself.

A recent example of convention being used in a legal fashion was when Boris Johnson suspended Parliament so that it could not pass legislation before the UKs deadline to leave the EU. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it was an unconstitutional act and that Parliament was to go back to that state it was just before he suspended it. Conventions evolve, but when the judiciary see a politician trying to pull a fast one, they will slap them down in a brutal manner.

Like the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today its was ok when you had muskets.The clue is in the title you can amend an amendment . A gun is privilege not a right.

The big whole in this video is it doesn't really delve into Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is perhaps the most important thing to understand, if you want to understand why the UK Constitution looks the way it does. Unlike in the USA, where the Constitution and its ammendments make up a sort of rule book, which is then adjudicated by SCOTUS; in the UK the rule book is, for most intents and purposes, whatever the hell parliament says it is. Really, the only hard and fast rules, are "You can't treat people differently in front of the law" (Rule of Law), and "Parliament cannot bind its successors, neither can it be bound by its predecessors" (so you cannot pass a law which says "this law can never be changed" as that would violate the parliamentary sovereignty of futute parliaments).

The UK constitution is flexible and can be modernised. The US constitution appears to stuck in time gone bye. The governors, senators and public appear to believe that it cannot be changed whilst quoting 'amendments' . To get an amendment it must have been discussed and changed. Public opinion change over time so why doesn't the constitution.

Tyler I just read : Louisiane requires schools to put posters up in schools with te ten commandments! in contradiction USA constitution separates State and Religion . So constitution USA works?

The House of Lords was the highest court in the land until the Supreme Court was created. The British Constitutional is not a single document, but a collection on many documents etc created over many centuries. A tyrannical Government could still arise in the USA, that it might take an armed insurrection to overcome. The US Senate constantly blocks legislation from the House, but the UK second chamber has been stopped from doing this by a recent convention. The UK is not stuck with an outdated idea like the US second amendment, so everybody does not have to be armed to the teeth, we are not afraid of our neighbours, or our Government.

The UK Bill of Rights existed about a hundred years before that of the USA

The UK constitution is written. It's just not codified.

Hilarious that there seems to be a an explicit belief that ‘ it’s written so you know how things are supposed to be’. So no interpretation huh?!

Hello Tyler, but I'm afraid that I must challenge your argument that the American constitution is interpreted in an unambiguous manner. I will give two recent examples that both involve an extremist controlled Supreme Court. The 1st example was from the 1970s, when the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was there wasn't a right for citizens to own any gun they liked, so gun ownership was very much lower than the present day. What happened was a conservative controlled SCOTUS when ruling on the case brought to it and backed by the NRA and gun industry. The court changed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the current understanding, ultimately lesding to the daily mass slaughter that takes place in America. This illustrates the danger of a fixed constitution, in that the 2nd Amendment was added to the constitution when America had no standing army/organised military forces which men signed up to. Therefore, Citizens had the right to own muskets so in they could form up into a regulated militia if there was a threat against their neighbourhood or wider America. When US military forces were created there wasn't any need for the second amendment. However, it was never repealed leaving it open to abuse, and misinterpretation in the 1970s. Second case, occurred this year the 14th amendment was created after the civil law, in order to basically prevent anyone who took part in the insurrection from standing for a political office. The amendment gave the power to the individual states on who they would allow to appear on the ballot, so anyone involved in an insurrection could be excluded. The 14th amendment had been used on a number of occasions since the civil war without any issues at all. However in early 2024 we have a certain 🍊 individual who played the key role in the insurrection of the 6th of January and standing as the Republican Presidential candidate and a number of states using the powers granted to them under article 3 of the 14th Amendment were going to remove his name from Presidential ballot papers. However the Christian nationalist fascist msjority controlled SCOTUS arrived at a frankly legally delusional interpretation which ruled that suddenly states could no longer had the right to decide on their own as to who should appear on a ballot paper and exclude individuals who were involved in an insurrection. Of course this was interpreted as the court making a political decision in order to help their 🍊 buddy. This shows some of the dangers of having a fixed constitution, which is very rarely changed, but also having a judicial system where justices/judges are political appointments, if a political party goes bad and they control the Senate they have the opportunity to corrupt infiltrate the entire judicial system with extremist judges and justices. Now the political appointments of judges/justices is an alien concept in many countries, beause it can lead to destruction of democracy and it's replacement with an elected dictatorship (a democracy in name only) or a full blown dictatorship. Two countries that have gone down that road and have political appointments of judges/justices are Turkey and Hungary. Now, American democracy is under grave threat from the extremist Republican personality cult but also the extremist controlled SCOTUS whose justices have life terms and seem to consider themselves to accountable to no-one and above the law. Justice Roberts isn't even enforcing the weak agreement when it comes to ethics. Then you have Judge Cannon who regularly rules in favour of the 🍊 individual and against Jack Smith to such an extent that many feel that she's deliberately obstructing justice and completely corrupt . I mention the American constitution and the judiciary as the two are linked and illustrate how things can go very bad and perhaps a written constitution isn't a good idea after all.

The Prime minister cannot start wars. He has to ask the monarch. Blair tried to change that but the Queen refused to allow it to be discussed, as was her right.

9:40 these aren't legal documents as such, mostly they're books. The English Constitution is a book title rather than a legal document that everyone has to obey, and the reason there's no Scottish equivalent is because no one wrote one. These works will be consulted if the existing law is vague or unclear, but Acts of Parliament always take priority. Meaning if the government of the day decides something in that book isn't working and needs changing, they can pass a law to do that.

As a UK viewer, this was very interesting. It's something you never think about when you live in the system

Enjoyed this look at 'UK's Constitution Explained'. Thank you. It happened this way in this country simply because we are an ancient community and have travelled the distance adjusting and improving our laws over many centuries. Our Common Law for instance is a gem that many countries have adopted. Jordan Peterson has done one or two videos about it - one with a lady from Ghana and one just on the subject itself. The British ideal is to be 'governed lightly'. We have not always managed it through the centuries, but often we have. A great video for you to watch is 'The True History of Freedom Never Taught in Schools' by the eminent Thomas Sowell. Cheers from the UK

Prior to 2005, England and Wales effectively had a supreme court, but it wasn't called that. The most senior judges in England and Wales, the Lord Justices, sat in the House of Lords, and any five of them formed The Judicial Committee of the Lords. They were the final court of appeal for cases which had a constitutional importance - just like the US Supreme Court. Scotland has its own legal system.

One day I hope he comes to the conclusion that the rest of the world is not exactly the same as the US and that not everything can be compared to how things are or work in the States.

What the video did not tell you, was that there CANNOT be a “Dictatorship” in the UK. BECAUSE of the Monarch: 1) The King is head of the Armed Forces, not the Prime Minister or Government, and the Armed Forces swear alliance to the King, not the Government. 2) The King is head of the Police Forces, not the Prime Minister or Government. 3) The Civil Service work on behalf of the Crown, not the Prime Minister or Government. 4) Only the King can appoint a Prime Minister and Government, not the Leader of a Political Party. The result is, that even if a Political Leader wanted to take over the country, and enforce a “Dictatorship”: they do not have the Armed Forces, Police, Civil Service, or power to keep such a “Dictatorship” in power. The only available route to holding political power in the UK, is through the Ballot Box, by election: Not as a “Dictator” but as a ‘Steward’. The situation is different in the USA, as we have recently seen.

* An Act regarding, say, an increase in the rate of tax or a new rule for road use, would not be considered "Constitutional". An Act regarding voting age would be. * Prior to the setting up of The Supreme Court its role was carried out by a court called The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, usually referred to as "The House of Lords". This resulted in confusion with the upper chamber of Parliament which IS called The House of Lords, hence the creation of The Supreme Court was essentially just a change of name. * The component parts of the UK (Scotland, N, Ireland, Wales and England) do not have individual written constitutions. * The way in which certain parts of the British constitution can be modified can be summed up with one example in particular: Gun control. We are not saddled with the equivalent of the USA's 233 year old Second Amendment, written when the best available firearms were muskets. We have some of the strictest laws in the world regarding gun control and hence one of the lowest rates of deaths and injuries by firearms. 🙂

I think….uncodified means it (the constitution) has to be extrapolated out of the text where it applicable.

There is no single written constitutional document. Instead, law and government rely upon, Magna Carta 1215, Bill of Rights 1689, and legal precedent.

Well.... The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, was the first time in history where a set of rules were written down which gave the Scottish king - Robert 1 ( Robert the Bruce, the king who defeated the English at Bannockburn) - rights and obligations to the people of Scotland. You can see this document at Arbroath abbey.

Something you need to realise is that when the USA broke away from British rule it had a blank slate to start from meaning it was relatively simple to write down the main rules that this new state was supposed to be based around. The UK, however has to work with its past laws stemming back to when the Romans invaded. After nearly 2000 years of lawyers, kings and politicians changing things it becomes a lot harder to say 'this is the set of rules that we base everything around' in a single volume format.

Our Queen was and any future Monarch, are taught the Constitution from an early age, they are taught to learn it inside out.

the UK constitution, just like the English language, is convoluted, comes from many sources, and easily subject to change from outside sources

To add, in the UK Judges are not affiliated with a political party and are not voted for by the people. The people elect the Government and therefore, the Prime Minister and the Government employ, or in cases of senior Judges, recommend their appointment to the King (and they cannot be sacked, or fired very easily), so they are not politically motivated, or need people of a certain political persuasion, to keep their jobs. The judiciary in the UK is independent of the Government.

Example, your 2nd amendment, it doesn’t matter how many mass shootings you have in the US you will never get a two thirds majority in Congress to radically reform gun ownership. In the UK we had the Hungerford Massacre in 1987 which led to a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump action shotguns. In 1996 we had the Dunblane Massacre which led to the ban on handguns. “We the People” said this is ridiculous so did Parliament, because you are a new country with no history you put the Constitution up there with the Bible, If you write something in stone it’s hard to change.

Monarchy mate! They didn't have slave owners making up laws for white folk! There is however the law of the land. That is what I understood when living and working in the UK.

Magna Carta, Conventions, Acts of Parliament. Parliament Acts, Act of Settlement, Bill of Rights & more. The British constitution is unwritten only in the sense that it does not derive from a single constitutional document but many that evolved over a thousand years of history.

Unconstitutional doesn't mean the same thing in Canada and the UK as it does in the USA. It's like a category of laws. I think it dawned on you around minute 7. Laws are written down; they're bills that get voted into law. The outcome of cases that go to court are written down too. So are those documents with "huge political weight". They are super important for historical reasons. The key is it's malleable, it changes, it has no start, no end. That's how it changed from dictatorial, totalitarian monarchy to representative democracy over hundreds of years.

One of the examples of flexibility in this system was when New Zealand chose to do away with its upper house and govern with only a single parliamentary body. This differs from most former British colonies which retained an upper house as a senate or similar in place of the House of Lords in the UK system. As a small country with a small, by world standards, population the change has simplified government, especially with the introduction of an MMP electoral system giving a more representative composition of parliament.

Tyler - In the UK, the law is made in or under statutes, but there are areas where the law has long been laid down and developed by judges themselves: that is the common law. However, it is not open to judges to apply or develop the common law in a way which is inconsistent with the law as laid down in or under statutes, ie by Acts of Parliament. This is because Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution and Parliament has “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; and further, no person or body is recognised by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament"… In the UK common law system, the law is in some areas made, and the law is in virtually all areas developed, by judges, the doctrine of precedent, or as it is sometimes known stare decisis, is fundamental. Decisions on points of law, by more senior courts, have to be accepted by more junior courts. On issues of law, (i) Circuit Judges are bound by decisions of High Court Judges, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, (ii) High Court Judges are bound by decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and (iii) the Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court, or before the Supreme Court was created, the House of Lords, as it was then called.

The final arbiter and the final appeal if allowed to proceed that far is the Monarch. It is in their name that a prosecution is brought. Rex (King) or Regina (Queen) verses XXX.

In your example Not all acts of you government house or senate refers to acts regarding your constitution. Many of your acts are normal day to day running of government, policies and laws. These all act within the boundaries of your constitution. In the same way this is the same when they said not all acts of parliament is constitutional. Unwritten constitution really just means there isn't a collected, codified and written down in a single document with possible later amendments . That does not mean there isn't a constitution or rights and freedoms acts etc. It does mean it has grown organically over time and is not a single source but many. In many ways I think it's more adaptive, resilient and less rigid than other countries with written constitutions such as US.

Listening to it properly the first time would help.

I think one has to know the difference between Roman Law and English Common Law. Roman Law is based on written law books (or written constitution). In the past these lawbooks also were changed, e.g. if a new sovereign or monarch wished to do so. The English Common Law was originated as uncodified law, Judicial Precedent is binding in nature. Even a new sovereign can't simply change it. Although English Common Law has been codified in modern times, Judicial Precedent is still binding. And there is still no written constitution. Now you tell me about American law. Is it closer to Roman Law or English Common law?

He's wrong. The monarch is there to prevent tyranny. His power is almost absolute.

Something to add to this just clear up a little confusion at the start, when he stated that some acts are and are not constitutional and said constitutional acts were acts related to parliament and the people, the non-constitutional acts are related to basically anything else such as wildlife, land, property and almost contradictory, People who are not in the country legally.

As a musician, - we have something called "the theory of music" there are rules according to convention that form the base structure of music , repeatedly over centuries that basis has been broken, but somehow the weight of balance has prevailed.. while creating new conventions. I get the feeling the UK constitution is working similarly - the theory of Constitution.. almost everything has the ability to be tested and altered .. but in order to be achieved, it's filtered through 100s of people in the commons, the house of Lords, and even the courts.

The thing about our nebulous, uncodified "Constitution"... the IMPORTANT thing... is that it exists more in effect than it does in fact. In the same way that the Monarch retains immense executive power until they actually try to USE that power, the Constitution doesn't exist in any real sense until it's challenged... then there's suddenly half-a-hundred bits of compounded foundational statute, legal precedent, political opposition and good old-fashioned "wait, you can't do that because that's not how it's done" inertia to counterbalance radical/overtly malicious power concentration.

A few points that may make things easier - The English constitution is not in a single document but across whole slew of them. - The "documents of authority" are akin to the "Federalist Papers" in the US. - While there wasn't a Supreme Court before 2005, all of the powers and actions that it embodies were held by a counsel of Lords known as the "Law Lords" The powers were just moved.

Canada has a written constitution. It was originally based on the British North America Act. We rarely open the constitution because changing it is a major pain

Parliament is exceedingly jealous of its powers - one of which is that no parliament may be bound by legislation passed by a previous administration. There are obviously checks and balances that’ll confound any egregious or tyrannical moves to subvert traditional freedoms. The benefit is that government can be nimble, agile in meeting the needs of the day. The 18th century US Constitution can be seen as sclerotic and set in stone when it comes to meeting the needs of the 21st century. But it’s not immutable - you have the 19th Amendment instituted in the early ‘20s which was found to be impractical and dumped in the early ‘30s. So the US Constitution CAN be altered - IF there’s a will to do so. . . .

The House of Lords used to be The Supreme Court before 2005

OMS, I **HATE** it when Tyler chatters instead of listening.

It makes sense that The Lords shouldn't block legislation that was in the governing party's manifesto- because the manifesto is the basis on which that party was elected, and so it makes sense that these policies are 'the will of the people'.

The federalist papers that some SCOTUS things use to help interpret sometimes

The jury is out on the desirability of Supreme Court, as opposed to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which it replaced in 2009. It is supposed to be independent of both Parliament and Government … some say, however, that this desirable outcome has failed to materialise.

We have a Constitution consisting of several documents; documents which your lot plagiarised to create their own.

There is however a constitution for England alone, this is still a living document that is smothered by the ideology that is the United Kingdom or Great Britain. If England were to leave the UK. It would come into force It is one of the reasons why the founding fathers to King George Euston finish letters saying 'we want the English constitution, not the British army'

"The English Consitution" is not itself *the* English constitution. It's a book *about* the English constitution. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. Imagine if someone wrote a textbook about the US Constitution and called it "The US Constitution". The book itself is not the constitution, it's just a guide that explains it. The difference is that in the UK there are a lot of constitutional details which evolved throughout the centuries but haven't been explicitly written down in law. So these "works of authority" are used as a reference for those details.

Nothing written down means our constitution evolves with the times.

I had to google the definition of 'constitution' to make it more clear. Had only heard it applied to the American variation.

In practice how the uk government systems work boil down to what works at the time. The answers to whether or not something is constitutional or not are either “Yes, but no” or “No, but yes”. There’s always an exception to something. Before 2005 the Supreme Court functions were carried out by the House of Lords

Parts American Constitution is based on Magna carta mentioned in this video. This is celebrated by the Americans . Where it was signed. Look it up I think it was Runnymede ?? A small part of USA is in now in UK

Another example of a convention is the The Sewel Convention, which applies when the UK Parliament wants to legislate on a matter within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament) or Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the terms of the Convention, the UK Parliament will “not normally” do so without the relevant devolved institution having passed a legislative consent motion. However frequently the devolved institutions have refused permission and their objections have been ignored.

What about the President only being allowed two terms ? Donald will soon change that if most of the states agree.

To confirm, while the Supreme Court as a distinct entity was only set up by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the UK has always had a "supreme court"esque institution carrying out that senior court role. It's just that until 2010 it was logistically part of the House of Lords.

The UK had a “Supreme Court” prior to the creation of such a body. A committee of the House of Lords - the Law Lords - functioned as the highest court. The Law Lords were also members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). The JCPC functions as the “supreme court “ of the British Colonies.

If UK held to the Magna Carter we would have problems as was written so long ago ,when we. had no parliament ,only a King and Barron's!

Some of the Acts of Parliament and conventions are really old. The Magna Cara dates from 1215 (it helps that various later kings agreed that the Magna Carta was still in force); the Bill of Rights (1688) sets out who has the power to raise taxes (and what is a tax) - and was cited in case law circa 1977 in New Zealand; the Cabinet Manual is a strange document because in the UK, Canada and New Zealand, Cabinet Ministers are elected members of Parliament and need to show they are following natural laws of justice i.e. not objectively being dicks by the usual rules of social engagement. One has to remember that England was the first country to prosecute a king for tyranny - and then cut his head off. In the UK, Canada and New Zealand the sovereign is not above the law.

These are Sources of the constitution. Therefore, they function individually but not separately, they are interconnected agencies. It is flexible to the point we can get rid of the leader before the end of their 'term' without too much hustle - it takes the members of the Parliament to vote. The UK source of the constitution might seem confusing if compared to the United States' constitution which is a single and long source of the legislation and it is supposed to provide direction to the nation. In reality, there are 5 sources of the British constitution, the one missing here is the International Law.

Speaking as a Brit, I learnt a lot from this video!

Maybe I am wrong, but the relationship between the Monarch and the Parliament (the people) seems Constitutionaly relevant to me. The Scotish referendum required the consent of the Queen. The Monarch needs to invite the Prime-Minister to form his Government. Most branches of the British armed forces swear allegiance to the King and so on.

When you have several thousand years of recorded history and laws, spanning hundreds of often conflicting ruling bodies you tend to want a more flexible system to allow for adaptation as needed.

We do have a written constitution, however it is not codefied (meaning that it is not concentrated to a single document). As for TLDR's interpretation of implied repeal, they aren't completely correct in what they say. When new legislation is passed through Parliament that supersedes an older legislation, then the older legislation (to the extent where it has been affected) is automatically repealed via the Doctrine of Implied Repeal, unless that is law is specifically exempt from that Doctrine (which would apply to any constitutional Act as that requires express repeal rather than implied repeal). When they are listing Common Law, what they ought to have listed instead is Stare Decisis, which is the legal phrase explaining precedent, as the principle is actively relevant in areas other than common law which make up our constitution. Rulings from courts hold weight for setting precedent - it can be changed, but typically will have a solid reason as to why the Judge at any particular time is breaking away from precedent to set a new one. As for what protects our parliament from falling into the hands of any bad egg, well that would be our monarch. The monarch cannot create laws, but does have the power to block laws and refuse royal assent (which is required to make legislation official). The monarch also has the power to dissolve parliament and the government. TLDR mentions that the monarch has not blocked legislation before, but that's not strictly true - during Blair's time in office, he attempted to pass a law in parliament which would have allowed him to seize control of the armed forces from the monarch (so that he would not require the monarch's permission to conduct air raids), but Queen Elizabeth stepped in and prevented that Act from royal assent (so it was never officially made law). Politicians in the UK are sandwiched between the general public and the monarch; they can be voted in or out by the general public in elections, and they can be removed at any time by the monarch, thus it would be very difficult for any bad egg to retain onto any power in UK politics let alone get a foothold into it (because of our first past the post system). As for the changes to constitution - that is correct, and in my opinion is a good thing as it allows us to update our constitution to fit modern times with ease. One example could be firearm ownership; at one point in the UK it would have been regarded as a constitutional right to bear arms, now not so much; but that change happened effortlessly in very quick succession.

Its like with the Treason law, used to be formerly Petty (going against any citizen I think is what that applied to) and High Treason (going against the Monarch), thats not been implicitly repealed, but its never been used for least decades if not least 100 years I think (I don't exactly know to be honest so someone may correct me lol, more likely someone would try someone for which ever more modern law fits what a defendant has committed.

It exists. It's just not a single document, and part of it is purely traditional. And if a tradition gets in the way, we can just get rid of the tradition when it becomes obsolete. Not all acts passed by parliament *relate to the constitution*, and as such are not constitutional because they don't form part of a constitution. Previous to the Supreme Court, the final court of appeal was functionally a body within the House of Lords. The Authority thing is essentially "these important and persuasive scholars say that X, Y, and Z are recognised as being constitutionally important", and they're *generally* agreed to be rules that we follow, even though they're not legally enforceable. For example, it might just become accepted that a particular cabinet position has authority in a particular area because that cabinet position exercises authority there - even though no law has been passed to say that's the case. In future that authority could be officially given to the position, or given to another position - or eliminated entirely - by actual law, or by usage that authority could drift into someone else's hands. For example, the Prime Minister doesn't really exist on paper, but it's a collection of jobs that have come together in the hands of the leader of the major party, as the person who forms, and runs, a government, and it has acquired powers that exist solely because everyone agrees they exist. An Authority might merely note "this is how things work at the time the Authority is written". "The English Constitution" might be better titled as "A commentary on the English Constitution", or "A review of the English Constitution". *Legally* the monarch can select anyone to form a government. In practice it has to be someone who "Commands the respect of the House", and can form a majority there (either from their own party alone, or from a combination of parties). So *by convention* the Prime Minister (who doesn't exist legally) is the leader of the largest party, except during caretaker periods where a new leader is being selected, when it will still be someone who can speak for the party in charge. Conventionally the monarch is required to seek advice from the PM and government on a whole raft of appointments, even though legally they have free choice on who to appoint. Conventionally the monarch is obliged to keep (at least publicly) neutral in politics, even though that's never actually become law. Conventionally the monarch lets the Prime Minister govern with only advice and discussion, but legally the monarch can fire the Prime Minister on the spot, and take up the reins of government themself (if, say, there was an emergency like the Houses of Parliament exploding, killing the entire government; or if the PM was considered to have gone insane and was holding a coup) - although *another* convention would be that the monarch would arrange for a new government to be formed as quickly as possible, and that new elections were called if necessary.

Tyler seems to have forgotten that the USA has a few Amendments to the Constitution.

I asked an American on Twitter before about the US Constitution, unfortunately this particular individual was a MAGA fan and he was utterly clueless at the Constitution of his own country. I corrected him in every single question on the Constitution and then he said to me you know more about the Constitution than me which State do you live in and I said neither I’m not American and he was shocked at how much of the Constitution that I knew.

we make it up if there is a need

A lawyer friend of mine once explained it to me. “The King in Parliament can do whatever he wants”. 🧐

Your constitution is to rigid , your unable to ban guns because off your constitution.

Unwritten constitutions were around for millennia. A famous work by Aristotle in the political history of Athens as a polis (city-state) is called Athenaion Politeia (Constitution of Athens). The Romans were very proud of their constitution, also unwritten, the mother of all the modern constitutions. The idea of the constitution is the idea of limiting personal power of a potentate via a complex of liberties belonging to citizens and via set procedures. Constitutional rule is, therefore, essentially republican, even if there is a monarch playing a certain role in the functioning of the state. United States gave humanity the first written Constitution, and we are grateful for that. However, UK follows the rule - if it’s working, don’t fix; therefore UK Constitution stays without a single written code.

Also due to Parliamentary sovereignty (only Parliament can make and unmake the law), implementing a written constitution with staying power would be difficult, as an opposition government could always just repeal it, or they could create a 'notwithstanding the constitution' act that bypasses it. UK courts can't strike down unlawful legislation so any unconstitutional funny business that a Parliament tries would have to be put up with.

We don't have to worry about the same rules applying to weapons from the 18th Century to the 21st century, e.g., a Musket vs. an Automatic rifle. If said rifle was an issue for the non-military public, then they should be banned from the public realm. UK constitution 'evloves' as technology and society evolve. The US constitution is a religion (like the UK NHS).

In other words the American Constitution is written similar to bullet points (ironically) and is based on our laws that are written in different law books. If I remember correctly the American Constitution has been changed or add to over 40 times.

Flexibility is the whole point, going back to the idea that Parliament is the supreme authority in the land. This means that, theoretically (although Convention means this would be very very unlikely to happen) Parliament could just keep extending its term forever, mitigating the need for an election. The last time this was done was during the Second World War, when there ought to have been an election in 1940. Instead, parliament extended its term year on year until the end of the war in Europe, when an election was called. This means that, say, during a global health crisis, you don’t have to have rallies or protests which help spread a disease, you can just wait that out.

Britain has a very long history of Kings and Queens going back thousands of years. Our Royal families are Heads of State not elected Politicians. All British Laws have a Royal Command. Our Armed Forces and Police swear allegiance to the King/Queen not the flag. Their promise to the King/Queen is to protect the people or the King/Queens subjects.

To clarify, the kinda stuff that "convention" was describing is stuff like how the cabinet works. The Prime Minister selects members of their party to be responsible for various aspects that the "government: (party with most seats in Parliament at the time) is responsible for - stuff like the health secretary, home secretary, or foreign secretary. The head of the opposition (head of largest rival party) then also forms a shadow cabinet, with opposite numbers for all of the cabinet roles, basically to monitor the cabinet, hold them to account, etc. TBH, I feel like the US could probably benefit from copying those sorts of conventions, and generally trying to broaden their party leadership to have more specific senators being predominantly responsible for different branches of government.

It's where the UK and those with an Uncodified constitution are years ahead of the USA, the UK has a constantly changing constitution set by legal precedent. It is constantly updated. This is where the USA in my view has problems, how can a constitution written when there were no such things as internet television etc. be relevant today. Trying to determine what the founding fathers would have said or ruled about things they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams is ridiculous. Whereas the UK constitution has grown and adapted as society has progressed.

I feel like the "works of authority" could have been worded slightly better: - it is the equivalent to considering not just the words in the US constitution, but the founding father's intent when they wrote the constitution, or the books that those founding father's wrote during the independence war more generally.

The United Kingdom does not have a single, codified constitution in the form of a written document like the United States or France. Instead, the UK has an unwritten constitution, which is a collection of laws, conventions, and traditions that have developed over time. There are several reasons why the UK has an unwritten constitution. One reason is historical: the UK developed its constitution over centuries, starting with the Magna Carta in 1215 and continuing through the development of the common law and parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike some other countries that went through revolutions or constitutional crises, the UK did not have a single defining moment that required a written constitution to be established. Another reason is practical: the UK’s system of government is based on flexibility and adaptability, rather than rigid rules. The unwritten constitution allows for changes to be made over time in response to changing circumstances, without the need for a formal amendment process. Despite not having a written constitution, the UK has a number of constitutional documents and principles that are widely recognized, including the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. These documents and principles provide a framework for the UK’s system of government and protect fundamental rights and freedoms.

Does the United Kingdom have a constitution? Status: The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document