The British constitution is a child of accident and design" comments.
Answers
Answer:
Because our “constitution” (if you can call it that) isn’t some monolithic document, drawn up by uppity revolutionaries as a single thing, then amended. It’s a product of history. And as you know, history is often one accident after another.
Most of our constitution revolves around how the government works. Sure, there’s things like our common law system, where a small accident in a case can cause, what is effectively, new laws to pop up, the things like the city of London (not the London you’re likely thinking of, but the square mile) which has Privilages, because it does. Why? Because it always had them when the rules were being written. The CoL could well have a Privilage it gained just by saying it did have it before the rules were written.
Everything from black rod to dragging the speaker of the house is considered essential to the functions of parliament, even if it isn’t necessarily written down. That’s the beauty of the system. If the Mace isn’t there, parliament can’t write laws. If the speaker walks to his seat after being elected, he’s not speaker yet. Things like the Magna Carter and the Bill of rights, even if most of it has been repealed by now, set the foundation of what we could consider our constitution. The MC because some barons felt the king was too powerful, the BoR because we had a king who was born catholic, in an age where Catholicism wasn’t very popular in our country.
But let’s look at the newest addition. “Succession to the Crown Act 2013”. We had a potential future heir to the throne on the way and some people didn’t think it was fair that if the duke and duchess of Cambridge had a girl then a boy, the younger boy would get the crown. So we rushed through some legislation (it had been in the works since 2011 with the Perth agreement, but suddenly, for no reason whatsoever (cough kate’s Pregnancy cough) it became more urgent. Americans, and other republics will never understand just how monumental this change is to our country, as they don’t have a monarchy which has run with these rules for over a thousand years)
sidenote- the Succession act didn’t end up changing the line of succession, so far. But it may do, and one day, likely past my lifetime, we might wish we hadn’t done it while we suffocate under an iron fisted Queen, rather than her younger brother who’s far more benevolent. Or we might have dodged a bullet where the older sister is far more benevolent than the younger, ruthless brother.
Explanation:
plzz mark as a brainlist.
Answer: British constitution was never approved by a constituent assembly, and it was never formally ratified by the British.
Explanation:
It is not a finished product, but rather a work in progress. It is a child of wisdom and chance, whose path has been directed by accident and great design at times." King Charles signed. The British Parliament approved a number of reform Acts. The British Constitution is a living document. It has never been created and codified as a book. It was never approved by a constituent assembly, and it was never formally ratified by the British. Nonetheless, it has always been there in their thinking and has been successfully operating from very early times. Several historians, most notably De Tocqueville and Paine, who dispute its very existence, have criticised its unwritten character.
#SPJ3