Ah ok, that's definitely an important distinction.
Practical question: how does one determine whether an action is unconstitutional? How does one refer to "case history" (or whatever) if it's not written down?
That's a part of the "crisis". In Canada there's also many unwritten conventions. Its just been so that nobody's forced the testing of these, for lack of a better term, "gentleman's agreements".
For example, in Canada the dissolution of Parliament (aka. triggering an election) occurs because the Prime Minister asks the Governor General (who is basically a proxy for the Queen of Canada) to issue a proclamation stating as much.
So does that mean the Prime Minister could simply never do that, causing their party to form the official government indefinitely?
Well... Maybe. Nothing says they can't do that. It's just that no PM has ever thought of trying it.
It must sound loosey goosey and kind of dangerous, but it seems to work fine.
Some rules aren't written unless some jerk makes us write them down.
It is all written down (in innumerable textbooks, court judgments, etc. etc.), just not in a single official document titled "The Constitution of the United Kingdom".
Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)
>Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)
I appreciate the joke (really!), but that's not what's perplexing, here. Even if there are disagreements in (e.g.) US constitutional matters, the reference documents and their order of succession is well-known.
Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree?
I've been living here for a year now... I really ought to know this stuff :/
>I've been living here for a year now... I really ought to know this stuff :/
Don't worry, people who have lived here all their lives often get this stuff wrong!
>Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree?
IANAL, but as far as I know it generally doesn't happen.
Parliament is sovereign, so what it says (when it creates Acts of Parliament) goes. And newer Acts trump older Acts.
There are exceptions, though. For example:
- Common law, which is entirely created by case law. However statute does override this where it exists
- 'Constitutional Acts', which are certain Acts of Parliament that are held to be more foundational. For example the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972. These are exceptions to the "newer Act trumps older Act" doctrine and can only ever be explicitly repealed, modified or ignored.
Fair. I'm from Canada and am borrowing what I know about our system and what I know about theirs.
We would call it that. Hmm. What do you call it in the UK? A crisis caused by the challenge of technically legal but completely unfounded government/monarchy actions.
