0

I am doing research on the subject of false-authority. The most objective thing to base it on seems to come from the soundness of the terms governments use to define themselves.

One of the main examples that came up from my research is whether a country without a constitution be a Constitutional Monarchy?

|improve this question
  • 1
    Wikipedia claim the UK is and it doesnt have a constitution. I think it is an important question and one I need an answer to. Maybe your answer is trivial buit doesnt mean everybody's will be. In fact there is already one non-trivial answer. – Gary Carlyle Cook May 11 '16 at 12:30
  • 2
    @Bregalad the catch is "constitution" is sufficiently vague. For example, the UK Doesn't have a written constitution but has an implied one based in rules and tradition of parliament. – user1530 May 11 '16 at 14:44
  • Ok, I change my mind then. It's incredible the UK doesn't have a constitution. – Bregalad May 11 '16 at 16:40
6

The United Kingdom is referred to as a constitutional monarchy far more often than it is referred to as an absolute monarchy. However, it is generally referred to as having an unwritten constitution, as opposed to a written constitution, the Magna Carta and recent human rights laws notwithstanding.

So the answer is yes.

|improve this answer
  • Thanks for the answer. So, It is more a subjective thing than objective? Ie, the government can make it up as they go along basically? Any country could claim to have an unwritten contract with the people that applies even though some/all never agreed to it. – Gary Carlyle Cook May 11 '16 at 12:33
  • 3
    @GaryCarlyleCook- The UK has a system built up over thousands of years. Any fundamental principles have evolved, as shown by those documents. The fact that it has changed in the same general direction as the US is evidence that the presence of a written constitution doesn't actually make that much difference. – PointlessSpike May 11 '16 at 13:03
  • 1
    @PointlessSpike- I think that the "s" should be striken at the end of "thousands", and even thousand should be replaced by hundreds, around 800 years. – Bernard Masse May 11 '16 at 23:32
  • @PointlessSpike, The US system is based on the UK system quite obviously I think. Plus, surely, the most important thing is how decent they are at dispensing real justice. If you ask me both system are almost the complete opposite. Most statute laws seem to be about false authority and revenue generation. – Gary Carlyle Cook May 12 '16 at 3:07
  • There is no need to oppose "constitutional monarchy" to "absolute monarchy". While I mostly agree with blips comment above, if you are not comfortable with the idea of an unwritten constitution you can use the term "parliamentary monarchy". – SJuan76 May 12 '16 at 9:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .