Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
54
-
18
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A constitution is not just written. There can be unwritten rules. Some constitutions even run on unwritten rules largely or completely. The British constitution is an example of a constitution that is almost 100% unwritten and the country largely functions purely on conventions instead of hard written rules. Of course one can't simply make a rule up, but if there is a longstanding behaviourism (not nominating a SC judge right before elections) and a logical reason why that rule fits within the 'spirit' of the constition (f.e. democracy is an important principle within the US constitution and waiting for the people to vote for their political preference before appointing a political judge would be best done after the election if you base your judgement on this matter on democracy), then there is a good argument to call this an issue of constitutionality.
America has one of the most rigid, written constitutions, which is why I understand why you THINK that the written aspect is the only one that matters, but in the rest of the developed world it's very common to have even absolutely central aspects of the constitution be unwritten conventions. In American politics, everything that is not a written hard rule is consistently broken if party interests clash with the rules, so you ought to be extremely happy with the way your constitution is built, but yes unwritten rules exist too and they can be important. It's just that in the US the major parties will break them in a heartbeat if it suits them, while in f.e. the UK politicians not only respect unwritten rules but their entire government runs on them. Technically, documents asserting human rights and important constitutional issues like the limitation of power of the monarchy are simple laws that can be repealed just like any other law. But because of the highly important role they play within the British constitution, it is an unwritten rule that they are never to be tampered with. Such unwritten rules can be anything from very specific and small things (like don't do X right before an election) to huge aspects of the constitution.
I'm not saying that there is a constitutional norm not to elect a judge right before an election in the US, I just want to say that the discussion about the existence of such a norm is possible. In practice, this would of course immediately be highjacked by party interests though so it's a discussion that's going to be limited to constitional law circles. Neither of the big parties really care about the constitution enough to respect unwritten rules, so they'll just bend them to fit their own agenda. This is very different in other developed nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1