h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Contrasting the UK and US political systems - A1145440
Author: Jowot - U229571


Much similarity is often assumed between the US and UK which I think causes some unnecessary confusion in discussions.

This is interesting, but it reads very much as a list of facts at the moment. I think it could do with some more discussion to make it a well-rounded entry.

This is a very good entry which deserves to be in the edited guide.

>Given that the US has a written constitution to interpret, and that the tricameral nature of the legislature means that ambiguities or inconsistencies in law are often difficult to resolve; it follows that the US Supreme Court has a much more active role in making law than any UK judicial body.<

Your use of Tricameral legislature is just not corrct, it is a bicameral legislature with executive veto powers. I know what you are trying to say but it jars the nerves of any American reader.

This is a bit misleading, the court can not "make law" however they can invalidate any law they find violates a constitutional right. One of the best example of this is the famous "Rowe v. Wade" decision which basically stated that ANY law that limited a woman's right to an abortion was un-constitutional because it violated her "right to privacy". The right to medical privacy is not specifically stated in the constitution but was developed by interpreting other sections. There was no federal law that addressed abortion one way or the other but several, not all, states did have laws that forbade it. This ruling effectively over-ruled all those laws. In effect the Supreme Court made a law that protected Abortion rights, but it is not a true written law. This could be overturned by a constitutional amendment that spelled out exactly when and how abortion can be controlled, or by another Supreme Court decision to the contrary.

Another interesting case was the "Dread Scott Decision" back in the 1850's where a slave sued for his freedom because he had been moved by his master to a free state for several years and then taken back to a slave state where he was once again treated as a slave. The court ruled against him but this was overturned when the constitution was ammended to outlaw slavery.

>This, combined with the partisan appointment process makes for a very partisan body; most clearly seen when the 2000 presidential election was awarded to George W Bush by the US Supreme Court. <

Technically the U.S Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court which had turned overturned a ruling by a Florida Appellate court. The effect may have been the same, awarding Bush the Florida electoral votes, but only the U.S. House has the right to "elect' a president if the people do not.

OK I will change the tricameral reference.

On whethere the Supreme court makes law, this is surely a matter of interpretation. I daresay it is not how the system was intended to work, or how it is taught in civics classes, but it does seem, pratically, to be what happens. If it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn a decision of the supreme court rather than a normal act of congress, then that decision must be a higher law than normal law.

I am trying to discuss the contrasts between how the systems work, rather than how they claim to work. In this case the contrast with the UK is quite interesting, as the incorporation of the European Convention on human rights, gives for the first time the UK judiciary in some cases a role to oppose a decision of parliament. The incorporation was long opposed by some people for that very reason.

I daresay it could be better worded.

>On whethere the Supreme court makes law, this is surely a matter of interpretation. I daresay it is not how the system was intended to work, or how it is taught in civics classes, but it does seem, pratically, to be what happens. If it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn a decision of the supreme court rather than a normal act of congress, then that decision must be a higher law than normal law.<

My problem is your use of the word "law". Law usually refers to a statute or ordinance passed by a legislature and signed into law. On the other hand a court issues a ruling or decision, which as you point out has more power than law. Court rulings can be used in other cases as a precedent on how to apply the laws sighted by the lawyers ( solicitors ) in the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court can not start action on any subject unless it is brought to them on appeal of either an existing criminal or civil case that are based on rights given in the U.S. Constitution. In the case of the 2000 presidential election Gore (or his people ) sued the state of Florida in an effort to force a manual recount of certain counties votes. In some cases a person will purposefully violate a law that they feel is un-constitutional as a "test case" to put the issue before the court.


>I am trying to discuss the contrasts between how the systems work, rather than how they claim to work. <

All the more reason to be correct in the actual way they bend the rules.

>In this case the contrast with the UK is quite interesting, as the incorporation of the European Convention on human rights, gives for the first time the UK judiciary in some cases a role to oppose a decision of parliament. The incorporation was long opposed by some people for that very reason.<

In many ways the U.S. works more like the E.U. than a single country. The only cases that actually appear in a federal court are those that violate federal law such as the Income Tax, take place outside the jurisdiction of a state ( one I know of was a workman's comp case that took place on a ship with a foreign flag that was being unloaded ) any fraud involving the post office and such and cases that are appealed on U.S. Constitutional grounds. The vast majority of cases take place within the state judicial systems and follow only the laws of that state.

When someone is trying to make a big deal out of a small problem it is common to tell them "don't make a federal case out of it."

Each state has its own supreme court that can overturn the laws that state based on the state's constitution.

>I daresay it could be better worded.<

I bet Shakespeare often said the same thing

OK, I have made some corrections and alterations. I take the point about adding discussion, and I'll have a think about it.

On 'pork barrelling': There is more at stake than federal monies, and this is due to the fact that a local representative in the US *must* actually come from the region he represents. Typically, laws that benefit his region or his state are also passed, and these are sometimes called 'special interest' laws. In particular, there is a region of the State of Mississippi which still employs americans to manufacture small engines of the kind you'd find in lawn mowers and leaf blowers. These engines are currently exempt from federal air pollution standards. The State of California is quite Green compared to the rest of the country, and did a study that showed these engines cumulatively cause a significant portion of our air pollution, and so California regulates these. Bush needs Mississippi to get reelected, so a federal law (and federal laws are presumed always to trump state ones, if the federal government has jurisdiction at all, as you have mentioned in your devolution section) is pending to that says 'any amount of air pollution by these devices is OK'.

On strong v weak: As I have mentioned above, it's required that the representative come from the area he represents in the US.

On the Electoral systems: As far as I know, there isn't a fixed total number of constituencies in the UK. There are only so many in the US, which is another influence that makes a smaller population state have more representation in places other than the electoral college. In particular, if a state has a population less than 300,000 people (which is about what one House of Representative district needs nowadays), they still get one Representative, and so each person of that state has an incrementally larger say in what laws get passed in our House of Representatives.

Hmmmm.... Author still appears to be around periodically....

You talkin about me.

Yes!

So, what's the score?

Said periodical author has now been absent for 2 months. I propose a move to the Flea Market, to pick up the potential in the entry.


Geggs

I think that would be a good idea. It does have potential but there are a few misconceptions and errors that need to be ironed out in respect of UK politics. Particularly the common misconception the the UK does not have a written Constitution. It does, the difference is that it not written down in a single document like the US Constitution.

It is in written down in things like the Parliament Act 1911, Representation of the People Act 1989, Act of Settlement 1701 and various other Acts of Parliament that have been passed over the centuries. All these cover areas that are also covered in the US constitution.

Also the claim that there are no checks an balances because the House of Lords has little political power. This shows a failure to understand how Parliament works which has no comparison at all with the US constitution, mainly because of the way it has evolved over nearly a thousand years.


Donald

Flea market it is then

Oh cheers.

Well, if you don't want this moving to the flea market, how about doing some work on it?

Move it if you like - I don't have the time right now.