Written V Unwritten constitution.

[SoylentGreen]

Civil and political rights in NZ | Elections New Zealand

A constitution is a code of rules, both written and unwritten, which outlines the functions, powers and duties of the various institutions of government, regulates the relationship between them, and defines the relationship between the state and the public. The balance between the written (legal) and unwritten (constitutional conventions and practice) varies from country to country, but most countries have a mix of the two. It is common that at least some of these rules are set out in a document or documents that are considered ‘constitutional’. The word constitution is also used, perhaps more commonly, to describe a single, sovereign, authoritative document known as the Constitution – like the Constitution of the United States, or Australia, or Canada. Such a constitution is often called a written constitution, even though it is usually supplemented by unwritten conventions. The better term is codified. More important is the status of the document as the ultimate, superior law of the land. As such it is usually enforced by the courts using the doctrine of judicial review (which may be applied to the legislature along with other parts of government). It is entrenched, which also makes it difficult to change. An entrenched constitution often includes a bill or charter of rights. These constitutional documents protect people’s individual rights and freedoms and so define and protect people’s civil rights. Both Canada and the United States have a statement of rights as a part of their constitution, while Australia does not. New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world with an uncodified, ‘unwritten’ constitution (Israel and the UK are the others). This is a flexible, organic construction that changes over time. Parts of it are written, but it is not found in any one document. It is not entrenched, and Parliament (rather than the constitution) is sovereign. Most experts agree that the courts do not have the power of judicial review.

So on the one hand we have america with a written constitution and with that american society has become entrenched and no matter how much people complain about the government very little changes.

On the other hand an unwritten constitution does not actually mean there is no constitution, only that it is written in many differing legal documents. This allows for society to be able to make changes more easily and allows the governance to change and reflect the needs of society.

All three of the countries that do not have a written constitution are all progressive western style countries. It cannot be said that lacking a written constitution brings about dictatorship or lack of freedom for the people of a country.

But having a written constitution makes it difficult if not near impossible to make changes thus denying freedom to the next generation to make changes that suite their lives rather than that of their ancestors.

So which is better, written or unwritten?

[Questatement]

All of the countries you listed have both written and unwritten codes of law which define what would otherwise be called a formal "Constitution." All countries also rely on a combination of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government to define, interpret, and act upon these laws.

Honestly, I think your issue is with semantics, not any real difference in governance.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Questatement All of the countries you listed have both written and unwritten codes of law which define what would otherwise be called a formal "Constitution." All countries also rely on a combination of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government to define, interpret, and act upon these laws. Honestly, I think your issue is with semantics, not any real difference in governance.

No quest, wrong way around.
constitutions define the codes of law. not codes of law define the constitution.
The difference is that the countries with a written constitution have more difficulty changing the codes of law than those with an unwritten one.

[Questatement]

Quote by: SoylentGreen No quest, wrong way around. constitutions define the codes of law. not codes of law define the constitution. The difference is that the countries with a written constitution have more difficulty changing the codes of law than those with an unwritten one.

A literal "Constitution" is nothing more than the collection of written codes and formalized as such. Seriously, do you need examples of written codes from Israel, New Zealand, and/or the UK which, although not collected/formalized into a constitution, serve the same purpose as, say, the U.S. Constitution?

Conversely, do you want examples of unwritten codes 'surrounding' the U.S Constitution?

[Charlatan]

So the constitution defines the laws, but is it just to say that something basically biblical is right? These things were set forth by idealists a long time ago, and as new trut is found so laws change. We have found new truth and tried to model it on the constitution, but why try to model truth on anything?

The constitution should, simply, be, "that all things should benefit society." That is all it should be.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Questatement A literal "Constitution" is nothing more than the collection of written codes and formalized as such. Seriously, do you need examples of written codes from Israel, New Zealand, and/or the UK which, although not collected/formalized into a constitution, serve the same purpose as, say, the U.S. Constitution? Conversely, do you want examples of unwritten codes 'surrounding' the U.S Constitution?

Try reading the OP quest. Very first sentence.

A constitution is a code of rules, both written and unwritten...

and again

like the Constitution of the United States, or Australia, or Canada. Such a constitution is often called a written constitution, even though it is usually supplemented by unwritten conventions. The better term is codified.

You don't have to show what has already made obvious to any one who can read. What you are asked is to decide whether a codified constitution allows for the same amount of freedom as an uncodified constitution.

Seriously Quest how much baby language do i need to put this in to point out it is not about the codes of law which all the countries mentioned have. it is about the difference of flexibility and freedom having or not having a codified constitution.

[Questatement]

So if I take my (codified) bible and rip apart the 66 books and spread each book in a different place around the house, I don't have a bible in my house anymore?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Questatement So if I take my (codified) bible and rip apart the 66 books and spread each book in a different place around the house, I don't have a bible in my house anymore?

so is that an admittance that the american constitution is nothing more than a bible. Something set in stone that cannot be changed . That it is not people who make the decisions but a piece of paper.

Again quest if you cannot be bothered to read the OP then don't bother to post here.

New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world with an uncodified, ‘unwritten’ constitution (Israel and the UK are the others). This is a flexible, organic construction that changes over time. Parts of it are written, but it is not found in any one document. It is not entrenched, and Parliament (rather than the constitution) is sovereign.

Do you get the difference.

[Questatement]

Quote by: SoylentGreen so is that an admittance that the American constitution is nothing more than a bible. Something set in stone that cannot be changed.

Since you seem to lack a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the ability to amend and/or interpret it, I don't think we'll get very far on this.

Quote by: SoylentGreen That it is not people who make the decisions but a piece of paper.

And just how and who transformed a piece of paper into something of meaning?

Quote by: SoylentGreen Again quest if you cannot be bothered to read the OP then don't bother to post here.

It's not that I don't get the OP, it's that there is not the distinction which is represented as the premise in order that the primary question to be answered in an accurate context.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Do you get the difference.

So in NZ, the parliament does not regard any written laws when enacting the duties of their office?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Questatement Since you seem to lack a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the ability to amend and/or interpret it, I don't think we'll get very far on this. And just how and who transformed a piece of paper into something of meaning?

It's true that the constitution is defended by the people, and that the document is intended to guarantee some basic freedom. But if we lack the basic infrastructure to distribute it evenly, freedom is just a word, and the constitution just a paper upon which words are written.

Grandpa h.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Questatement Since you seem to lack a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the ability to amend and/or interpret it, I don't think we'll get very far on this.

My understanding is far better than any who would foolishly use the bible as an analogy for the constitution.

And just how and who transformed a piece of paper into something of meaning?

Your ancestors, your fore fathers. not you. or your generation. The best you lot can do is make amendments and even that is difficult.

It's not that I don't get the OP, it's that there is not the distinction which is represented as the premise in order that the primary question to be answered in an accurate context.

Sigh! even when i repeat the Op for your convenience you still don't bother to read it.

The word constitution is also used, perhaps more commonly, to describe a single, sovereign, authoritative document known as the Constitution........It is not entrenched, and Parliament (rather than the constitution) is sovereign.

Is that enough of a distinction for you?

So in NZ, the parliament does not regard any written laws when enacting the duties of their office?

You really don't get it do you?

NZ, England and Israel all have laws. they all have parliments that work within the frame work of that law. What they have above your codified constitution is the ability to be flexible.

To put it simply, when someone proposes a change in these three countries. What you don't get is some whinger little nutjob sticking his hand up and saying something really stupid like "but it's not written in the constitution so you can't make that change."

What i am asking here is not whether each country has laws or obeys those laws, but how much flexibility is there by having a constitution.