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

One querstion regarding your first article: How do you define "a modern constitution"? Britain, afterall, still does not have a formal written constitution, and it is still a modern county, and has considered a formal constitution to be too limiting.

Hey, constitutions are only as binding as the next amendment or revolution, whatever comes first...

The irony is that the British Government have written more formal constitutions than anyone else... Just never for Britain.

Not in our backyard, thank you very much!

But then the British government have always thought that some things - elected heads of state replacing anachronistic monarchies, proportional representation - were good enough for the former colonies, but not for their own country.

Britain is a modern country that lacks a modern constitution. And as for being "too limiting," that is exactly the point behind having a constitution... limiting the power of government. However, as the people who have the power would be the people to write the constitution, and thus limit their own power... you can see why Britain still lacks one.

"elected heads of state replacing anachronistic monarchies" - And this only after the concept got beaten into their heads at Yorktown.

I still see no need for a formal written constitution - with the Rule of Law a written constitution is not needed. Afterall, Britain still has judicial review
Germany has found that a written constitution has, on very rare occasions, but still has found, has made it harder for the German government to expand and created quite a few problems with the
But this isn't really a thread for political discussion.
If it was, I'd say how America still hasn't got the concept of a National Health Service and allows it's poor ill to die. IE - treatment of diabetes. You have to pay for your own medical care, and if you're from a poor family, you die. That's savage.

What happened a century or more ago is what happened a century ago. Afterall, America still had slavery until the end of the Civil war. And still has a KKK. Every country has it's mistakes, Britain has made 'em, America has made 'em. But they were in the past, and not something anyone alive today has any control over, and so cannot be blamed for.

But it's still a valid criticism that calling only one model of Constitution "modern" isn't fair

You're rambling off on a red herring... the KKK and slavery have nothing to do with the form of government. And as for the modern constitution, if a single, coherent document isn't a more "modern" version, than what is? The first single constitution was written in 1789, the British model came about quite some time before... with the advent of the Magna Carta, I would say. Whether one system of government was superior has not been addressed in the article, and calling the American model "modern" only implies that it is a newer way of doing things. There's no room for debate here.

The lack of a national health care system in the US has nothing to do with the constitution... especially since the government has found it quite easy to expand their powers beyond the scope of the constitution throughout its history. The lack of national health care is strictly based on the American fear of government incompetence, of which we have seen ample evidence (and not only in our home country... we just publicize ours more). The current majority believes that medical care is too important to leave to the government, and when/if that changes, national medical care will become the law of the land.

Incidentally, it is worth noting that until fairly recently, charity clinics dotted the land, providing free medical care. What happened? The government got involved in medical care, and with so many regulations, nobody could afford to provide free treatment anymore.

Not all modern constituions follow the Seperation of Powers principle. France does, but not as succesfully as the US.

Okay, the KKK or Slavery do not have anything to do with the Form of Government, but they are to do with the running of government.

If a right to life is in the Constitution, then why isn't the Government doing more to insure that right to life through better health care. Britain has, but it only barely works - I think it is Sweden which is the best in the world. America ATM has nothing. If it went along Germany's model of Nationalised Insurance it would be a great start - that way it would not be the Government involved per se, but it would help.

Alas, though, all governments are incompetant. There is never a common consensus on what to do, as things are too party based in every country. Only with the abolition of party politics will things start moving forward.

Gooday Bluebottle,

History suggests that 'real' democracy works as inefficiently as the modern 'party' system, perhaps even more so. As a matter of interest, has anyone read Magna Carta? It has to be the most quoted but misunderstood document in English history. And what about the English Bill of Rights? America's Constitution is a marvellous document, mainly I think because it was written by men of genius who would tower over their modern-day counterparts. But it is an interesting point about Britain making sure its own 'colonies' got Constitutions (like Australia) while refraining from writing one for themselves.

Walter

I don't understand what you mean... what does the KKK have to do with government? They exist outside of government. They engage in illegal activities. Slavery also has nothing to do with the constitution... yes, the founders didn't outlaw it until late, but the rest of the world didn't discontinue the practice too soon before the US did. But once again, there is nothing in the *structure* of the government that promotes either, so you're wasting your breath on this subject.

A modern constitution does not necessarily have to involve the principle of seperation of powers... in fact, many of the trial versions in the US did not. Some of the first state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation were entirely legislative, with a powerless executive and no judicial review. But this will all be addressed in the next article in the stream, after I manage to slog my way through eight years of warfare.

I agree totally with Walter. The Magna Carta was all about a bunch of spoiled rich people stealing power for themselves. And the English Bill of Rights is a very misleading name... all it consists of is a bunch of charges levelled at an unpopular king... it grants no rights, unlike the American version. As I mention in the article, one of those charges was for keeping a standing army, and yet there was Britain with a standing army in Boston. There is a standing army in Britain today, which just proves how flimsy a job the English Bill of Rights has actually done. I leave you with a quote from Common Sense, which, in my interpretation, is just as true today as it was when he wrote it:

"Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in the favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey."

As Tony Hancock says in Galton & Simpson's "Twelve Angry Men":
"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?"

Hi
I know you already have a link to a Greek alphabet page, but I have wrtitten another which actually includes images of the letters.

http://www.h2g2.com/A429590

Hi,

I wrote an entry about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. See Page A466184. I hope you will add it to this page.