Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Growing up in America I was routinely taught about the Founding Fathers of the United States. While I am no longer able to readily call to mind most of the details (and even some of the names), I still hold a vague astonishment that such a large number of brilliant men appeared on the national (world?) stage at one point in time to create this new country.
I also realize that some, most, or perhaps all of the above sentiment may be due to indoctrination rather than having any real basis in historical fact. And yet, people like Benjamin Franklin quite obviously stood head and shoulders above regular men of the age.
So I ask - perhaps in vain, perhaps this is unanswerable - are America's Founding Fathers truly the group of brilliant, remarkable men they are made out to be in American schools - or can many/most/all countries around the world point to groups of similarly gifted individuals in their past? The Masked Booby (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of political thought, the founding fathers were definitely not ahead of their time. The Age of Enlightenment originated in Europe, specifically in France, and it's not surprising that the founding fathers adopted the ideals of the society they came from. Benjamin Franklin was certainly also a prominent Enlightenment figure in terms of his philosophical contributions, but it's unclear if the others would have been if they didn't gain the political clout they had. The US was also not the only country to adopt liberal ideals. The French did so shortly afterward, and many other countries' monarchs embraced "enlightened absolutism".
In terms of non-political, intellectual contributions, I don't think the founding fathers (aside from Franklin) were very prominent figures. They're certainly nowhere as well known for intellectual contributions as people like Laplace, Lagrange, Mozart, Austen, Lavoisier, Watt, and Legendre, all of whom lived around that time. We owe the industrial revolution to Watt (amongst others), for example, and most 18th century scientific developments to European scientists. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure I buy the thing about the French. Liberals had a role in the French Revolution in the early stages, but before long they were being sent to the guillotine as counter-revolutionaries. They came back a bit in the Thermidorean Reaction but could never really consolidate their gains until Napoleon finally overthrew them. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't negate the fact that the ideals had an influence (some, like Jonathan Israel, say the most important) on the outbreak of the revolution, as they had spread pretty much everywhere in French society in the decades prior to the revolution itself. And that these ideals had an immense influence in the following decade leading to the liberal revolutions in Europe in the middle of the century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the founding fathers were objectively an impressive bunch, I particularly like [[George Washington] and Alexander Hamilton. There are in fact incredible people throughout the histories of any successful nation, from Rome and Greece, to the U.S. and Germany. Typically history is taught in schools in a way to make it appealing to kids who would otherwise be bored, and generally topics are glossed over only focusing on impressive details. A standard AP U.S. history class should deal with corruption and poor leaders in more depth, while classes on world histories should introduce other prominent and influential figures.AerobicFox (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The founding fathers did not just drop out of the sky. Most of them had moved to very important positions before the Revolution. They were essentially the equivalent of the American "old order" when they took over from Britain. This is why the American Revolution was a very different sort of thing from the French Revolution or many other Revolutions — it wasn't a bunch of outsiders and upstarts, it was "the guys who were already mostly running things, and had spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff, setting up a system that was not entirely different from the one they had been living under previously, but had a few important changes made based on that experience." This isn't Che Guavara deciding he's an economist because he's got revolutionary spirit — these are actual lawyers, jurists, and political theorists figuring out how things should go, basing things largely on the pre-existing British system (which of course gets reduced to "tyranny" in your average high school history class, but actually had a pretty extensive and progressive set of rights involved in it). They were elite and elitists and certainly were brilliant enough to set up a Constitution that would only lead to a massive and nearly destructive Civil War in less than a century. I consider that a pretty good record as far as founders go, but let's not exaggerate it. There were also some pretty petty people lumped in with that group, but we tend to ignore them later except in how they show us how brilliant the ones we liked are. If I might recommend some slightly more realistic (but still pretty entertaining) media, the John Adams miniseries is pretty great at making these people seem like "real" human beings with very petty squabbles and very problematic positions, who nevertheless manage (barely) to pull off a pretty good idea and execution of a government. It's pretty great, in part that it introduces that sense of "these are very well educated but otherwise relatable people" that historians struggle to get across, along with a sense of the contingency (things could have gone differently) that historians are usually pretty good at getting across. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were also "in the right place at the right time" to go down in history as important and "incredible" people. There probably were, and always have been incredible brilliant people who were not in the right place at the right time, and as a result did not go down in history as incredible and brilliant. In some cases they formed teams that made their strengths greater and the weaknesses lesser. Washington and Hamilton are a good example of that I think. Perhaps Hamilton and Madison as well, at least during the drafting and promoting of the Constitution. Washington was loved for being the leader of the army during the revolution, but as I understand he was a fairly good but not a truly great general. I've long though his most valuable contribution to the founding the the country was his stepping down as president after two terms. He was so loved by the general population, he could have been president as long as he liked, which would have set a dangerous precedent, and one all too common in after other successful revolutions. His huge status and respect among Americans coupled with his stepping down after two terms resulted in the custom that no president should serve more than two terms, even though no such law existed (until FDR of course). But from what I've read he did not step because he wanted to set this precedent, but rather because he was sick and tired of politics and being in the public spotlight all the time. Of the other founders, Jefferson is a mixed bag of greatness, foolishness, and misguided idealism, seems to me. Franklin stands out among the US founders (though certainly not without flaws), but is just one of many impressive people of the larger Age of Enlightenment. Hamilton strikes me as impressive, but mainly when working with other people who balanced out his somewhat reckless passionate side--people like Washington and Madison. Hamilton and Madison's collaboration on the promotion of the Constitution is most impressive. But their careers afterwards are much less impressive. In short, I think part of the reason why these people are remembered as "greats", at least in the US, is because they happened to live during that particular period of history, whereas equally great, or greater people have certainly lived and continue to live around the world without being recognized as historical greats. Also, the American Revolution involved, by necessity, the bringing together and cooperation of leaders from the various colonies--which in earlier times had been fairly isolated and sometimes hostile toward one another. There were some significant cultural differences between the colonies. Feeling they needed to make common cause forced them to work together despite their differences. In some cases, like Hamilton and Madison, the result was a synergy that made both more remarkable than they would have been alone, I think. A final reason why these people are remembered and honored is because they fought and won a war that resulted in a new nation. That nation later fell into bitter civil war, and the president during that national crisis, Lincoln, is remembered as fondly as the founding fathers. Certainly there is a lot to admire about Lincoln, but he would not be the national hero he is had he not been president during the Civil War. It's a sad fact that leaders during wartime often become historic heroes, while equally or better leaders during peace are forgotten. An ancient Greek equivalent would be Pericles. Pfly (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the Founding Fathers were part of Richard Price's circle at Newington Green. Why so many original thinkers congregating in that place and at that time? Because of the challenges of the social problems thrown up in all the richer countries by the processes of industrialisation and urbanisation. A critical mass of radical thought was formed. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard PriceRichard Price was truly remarkable, in preaching pro-revolutionary radicalism and yet having the ear of the king's men for his economic work. From Newington Green Unitarian Church, of which he was the minister:
Back to the original question - several very good answers have already been given above. But you know, it's like silly tabloid/magazine articles that try to get readers to decide if, say, Elvis was the greatest rock star of all time . . . or was it John Lennon, or Mick Jagger, or Freddy Mercury, or even (God forbid) Justin Bieber. Have there been/are there other, perhaps unknown, musicians who were as musically talented as these guys, if not more? Quite possibly - but the ones who made it big and live in our collective memory do so partly because of their talent, partly because of being in the right place at the right time, and partly because they started something new and different that had a huge influence on all those who followed them. Plus the fact that successive generations still can listen to their music and be delighted. The same thing goes for famous painters, sculptors, writers, etc., etc. Is Shakespeare really "incredible" or is that just some bullshit propaganda my teachers tried to indoctrinate me with? Most English speakers who have really studied ol' Will's stuff to the point of being able to appreciate it will answer yes - some who never got past the "thees" and "thous" never will. The Masked Booby, instead of asking a question that amounts to a popularity poll, would do better to go read the actual writings of those guys (e.g., the Federalist Papers) and the contemporary accounts of their doings (including contemporary criticism of those fellows, which could be quite savage), and form his own opinion after taking time to digest and weigh and compare with their contemporaries in other lands. Chances are, I suggest, that he will find some were truly brilliant, others not so much, but the question as phrased really requires a personal acquaintance with the subjects to answer fairly. Otherwise, you're just depending on the opinions of strangers, and why should you weight those more heavily than you do that of your poor old history teachers? Textorus (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every political philosophy seeks to maximise the "capacity of the economy to satisfy the wants of the members of society" (quoting from economic growth). This is achieved on the whole by redefining what people want, in terms of what people ought to want. Since there are many contradictory opinions about what people ought to want, it's difficult to give any further answer to this question without it becoming a debate. Even a political stance which supported a barter economy, or a survivalist society, or radical population control, would claim to provide the best system, the safest, happiest system, and therefore to be the system which maximises long-term growth when compared to all the others. Only my own nascent political philosophy, anti-utilitarianism, with its doctrine of bringing the maximum misery to the maximum number of people, unapologetically attempts to prevent economic growth. Perhaps what the OP really wants to know about is how to control inflation to allow steady growth without any crises; this too is a matter of much opinion and is likely to dissolve into a fight between Keynesians and the Austrian School and various modern sects of both. Card Zero (talk)08:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case to be made that rapid economic growth on a global scale is no longer possible. Ultimately, even steady slow economic growth may no longer be possible. In fact, economic contraction seems more likely over the next century or two. Rapid economic growth may still be possible for a limited period of time in countries with relatively low material standards of living, but only at the expense of growth in countries with higher standards of living. Rapid economic growth entails rapid growth in the rate of extraction and processing of natural resources. High prices for commodities from copper to petroleum are a strong indication that Earth's supply of key natural resources is starting to diminish. That is to say, the past 200 years or so of rapid economic growth appear to have already used up the easiest-to-extract natural resources. If this is true, dwindling supplies and the increasing expense of extracting those supplies will place sharp limits on economic growth in the future. If you think about it carefully, unlimited growth (especially the exponential growth implied by the concept of growth rates) in material production and consumption is not possible on a finite planet. Steady exponential growth in material standards of living for a stable or growing population will inevitably hit physical limits on such a planet. Such phenomena as accelerating climate change and soaring commodity prices in the face of a weak economy are strong signs that we are now hitting these limits. Marco polo (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The standard answer is, start a war, of a size large enough to mobilize the whole of society. Big wars reliably produce an economic boom. Unfortunately our articles don't seem to cover this point very well -- it looks like the most relevant things we have are Military Keynesianism and Permanent war economy. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, because of the issues that I have mentioned, the future may not look like the past. In the future, a war may simply divert resources from the civilian economy to the military, resulting in no net economic growth and setting the stage when the war ends for contraction, due to neglect or destruction of the civilian infrastructure and the ongoing rise in the price of raw materials during the war. Marco polo (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
War only produces an economic boom if you win, and even then, only if your infrastructure isn't destroyed. Ask Europe how well its economy did during WWII. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Louie has it completely wrong. WWII in America is an anomaly regarding economic prosperity due to war. People often cite World War II as the event which ended the Great Depression for the U.S. and ushered in the economic boom of the 1950s. This has multiple problems 1) it isn't exactly clear this is true, but even if it is 2) people misunderstand why it is true and most importantly 3) People mistake the statement "World War II was good for the American Economy" as somehow meaning "War is good for the economy". Even if we take the former statement as true, history teaches us that the latter statement isn't necessarily true at all. In reality, nearly all the time, most wars are very costly, regardless of when and where they are fought. Even American wars fought on foreign soil (excepting WWII) have not been major economic booms for the U.S. That's because war is expensive, and it does not result in an investment in GDP, which means there is no return on the money spent in war. You have to pay soldiers, and armaments, and to supply them with food and shelter, and all the rest, and what does the government get in return, in terms of cash? Bubkes. It is money spent which large is sent down the toilet. Now, for some countries the returns may be worthwhile for non-economic reasons, but going to war is not a good way to make money on a national level. Its expensive and if it has any benefit for the combatants, the benefits are decidedly non-financial. War becomes even lousier if its actually fought in your country. As far as why the U.S. came out on top after WWII economically, its because the U.S. was the only economy that wasn't destroyed as a result of the war. The rest of the world still needed stuff that factories can make, but they had no factories. The U.S. did. Thus, the U.S. was able to profit off of they fact that their industrial capacity wasn't destroyed. However, this was due to the very unique circumstances of WWII, and not something which is a normal byproduct of war. Wars are bad for national economies, bad for government finances, excepting the one unique historical example of the U.S. after WWII, a set of unique sui generis conditions which are unlikely to exist again. --Jayron3217:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea is a hereditary monarchy in practice although it is supposed to be collective rule by the Workers' Party of Korea on behalf of the people of North Korea. You seem to have an idealized concept of communism. Although communists like to claim that communism will be a system in which everyone is free and live together in peace and harmonious cooperation, this is not how it has ever functioned in practice. Invariably there are people who try to act in ways inconsistent with the plan constructed by the communist party. Since there is no private property, no notion of I may control this while you control that, these differences of opinion have to be treated as treason/subversion. That makes communist nations authoritarian and oppressive objectively. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an issue with your initial assumption. You are right that North Korea does not resemble a communist state, but in fact they do not claim to be a communist state either. North Korea does not claim to be a communist country nor is it commonly regarded as a communist country - see Communism. North Korea's official ideology is not even Socialism, nor does it promote itself as a follower of Marxism-Leninism - see Marxism-Leninism. Since the 1990s, the official ideology Juche has been disassociated from Marxism-Leninism in official discourse: see Juche#Relation to Marxism, Stalinism, and Maoism.
In practice, of course, the ideology of the North Korean government manifests itself almost exclusively as a personality cult, there is very little in it that resembles what is more usually understood to be Socialism, and it hardly resembles Marxism at all. Even its similarity to Stalinism or Maoism is limited and cast into doubt by scholars.
While the official acknowledgment that Juche is not Marxism-Leninism came in the 1990s, in fact the elder Kim had already successfully purged his party (and it is not called a "communist party" or "socialist party") of the influences of both China and the Soviet Union decades earlier: see Workers' Party of Korea#History. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that news outlets in many western countries don't make the distinction. The identification of North Korea as "communist" (despite the reality and its own protestations) probably comes from that dichotomous view of the world as "capitalist" or "communist" during the cold war - viewed in that light, North Korea certainly belonged to the "communist" half of the world. But the reality is more complex - for most of the cold war, for example, China and Russia (both in the "communist" half) were actively hostile to each other ideologically and even militarily.
Note that socialism is primarily an economic system. It's a fallacy to equate socioeconomic systems with ideologies that promote socialism though both have historically been referred to as "socialism". A state can be socialistic independent of its form of government (if it even has one). In the same way that no one would describe the United States government as "capitalist", rather it is a federal constitutional republic with a capitalist market economy. Virtually all governments are also actually socialistic to an extent, which might surprise people. Public education systems, welfare, healthcare, public safety, nationalized industries, public buildings and roads, nationalized water or power services, etc. All of these are socialistic systems that provide collective benefit from collective resources, whether or not a country calls them that.
Modern "communist" countries, however, started out from revolutionary socialism which seeks to impose total socialism by force. The problem is that like other such power grabs (communist or not), the leaders themselves (especially charismatic ones) tend to prove to be rather power-hungry once they get to hold the reins. Human nature, I guess. The state quickly descends into totalitarianism, pronounced nationalism, and personality cults, cf. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Che, etc. The economic policies may be socialistic (state services, state-controlled industries, etc.), but the governments are almost always single-party states and authoritarian. The same can be said for "democratic" revolutions that ended up installing dictators instead.
It also really doesn't matter what they call themselves - "democratic", "republic", "people's", etc. are all buzzwords that don't really accurately reflect the true government system in place. -- Obsidi♠nSoul10:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes an important point even if North Korea doesn't call themselves communist. People often say 'country Y is/was clearly communist or socialist since they said they were, proof that communist countries are evil' seem to ignore the fact that most communist countries call themselves 'democractic'. In fact, it's often said that any country that has 'democractic' in its name usually isn't particularly democractic under the common accepted definition of democracy [1]. No one tries to use the as an example of how evil democracy is. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With North Korea being one of the three members of Dubya's Axis of evil, it's worth noting that the other two don't stand accused of being communist or socialist. Just evilness. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the issue that (I'm guessing) "socialist" is a dirty word in the United States a lot more than in other countries. A lot of liberal western democracies have major parties that call themselves socialist, democratic socialist or social democratic - Socialist Party (France) and Labour Party (UK) are just two. And they certainly wouldn't find being labelled "socialist" much of an accusation. Also see Socialist International.
It's worth noting that the three countries of the "Axis of Evil" where defined by none other than George W. Bush. They weren't selected by their "evilness" but because of dubious political reasons in an effort of justifying future liberations (invasions) by the compassionate US military. Notice also that evilness is a bit subjective and largely depends upon your point of view. Flamarande (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to prevent communism from evolving into capitalism is to use so much oppressive violence that it degenerates into "something much worse". That is, capitalism is freedom and peace. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peace? Capitalist countries seem pretty dang capable of making war... and willing to do it if the circumstances are right. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to disclaim the actually existing socialist countries because they do not fit your idealization of socialism, then why can I not disclaim the supposedly capitalist countries? Real capitalism does not exist currently. The war-like nations of which you disapprove are actually fascist. Notice that fascism is a form of socialism, or at least that Mussolini was originally a socialist.
Capitalism is based on private property and free trade. How many people are willing to pay for war out of their own pockets? Why would they want war when it offers no opportunity to make a profit? After all the property in the "enemy" nations belongs to someone else (so he cannot take it) and war interferes with trade. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chile was capitalistic under Pinochet's rule. But freedom wasn't there... Capitalism is an economic system, not freedom or peace. Pleclown (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious though. In a truly capitalistic society, what functions would a government then serve? Probably only legislature. There would be no military only mercenaries; no police, only bodyguards; no public works, except those provided by local fiefdoms of corporations; no president (or at least none with any real power), only CEOs. You'd be substituting a centralized form of government with fragmented corporation-states, each a government in miniature and each with their own agenda that is not actually for the good of the majority - profit. But heck, that's already happening. Multinationals are already more powerful than certain governments.-- Obsidi♠nSoul01:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did Daniel Sickles realy install the Lafayette Park railings around Gettysburg National Cemetery ?
Hello, learned humanitarians ! I am translating your article on Daniel Sickles into french (thanks a lot for the txt BTW), & I stumble on that notion, & don't find clear references about it... Is it a prank (knowing that in 1859 Sickles shot to death Key in front of those same railings), or a historical hazard, or a true fact (which'd BTW shed some more light on Sickles's psychology ?) Thanks beforehand for your answer, t. y. Arapaima (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our article does not seem to mention, but you may be interested in, the fact that Daniel Sickles lived in Europe (Spain, France and perhaps Belgium) from 1873-1880: his mother Susan Sickles née Marsh died in a Paris sanitarium in 1874; his son, George, at the age of ten wrote letters to his father in French, opening "Mon cher papá" and ending "Adieu ton fils qui t'aime tendrement". George eventually married Ysabel Brocheton, daughter of a French banker, on 1 December 1900 in Paris; George & Ysabel's son Daniel died in Paris on 31 August 1988. In the New York Times's coverage of the latter Daniel's marriage (in New York on 25 April 1930), he is described as “the son of the Countess Napoleon Magne of Paris, and a nephew of François Pietri, Minister of the Colonies in the Tardieu Cabinet, who was twice Minister of Finance in former French cabinets. He is a great-grandson of the late Chevalier de Creagh of Madrid, a Spanish Counselor of State, and a descendant of the Marchioness of Novaliches, Mistress of Robes at the court of Queen Isabella.” - Nunh-huh01:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HI, there is much on the Tiesenhausens but I cannot find info on Gustav or Baroness von Tiesenhausen from the mid-1800s or Ludmilla von Tiesenhausen from 1888. I wonder if some of the reference materials for the Tiesenhausen page have any info on these people as they are my family. Thank you.Merelinden (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Meredith[reply]
What is the penalty if a male migrant worker from a different nation let's say Somalia or Maldives or Afghanistan marries a Bangladeshi woman or a Bangladeshi man marries a non-Bangladeshi Muslim woman from Somalia, Maldives or Afghanistan? is the penalty in fees or going to the court to fight for marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.229 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is not asking for guidance or other legal advice; the question is "What will happen to someone who's convicted of doing this". Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not legal advice. Migrant workers, particularly those will few skills, may be employed on a work visa that forbids marriage to a local citizen. A violation would likely result in the visa being revoked, and thus the worker being deported. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking to access the fishing and hunting records of individuals who purchased licenses. The only state in the midwest where I can find this info is Wisconsin. Is there an easy way to find this information as it doesnt seem to be on their websites? Anyone have a list? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.204.66 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about the UK idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Is there any legal way for the UK Parliament to—like the US and Canada—give its courts the power to declare laws of no force or effect when they violate minority rights or the jurisdiction of constituent country parliaments? Is there any legal way for it to require a supermajority to revoke that power? If the UK parliament were to pass a bill of rights or delegate powers to the parliaments of constituent countries, and it started that law with the line "This law is the supreme law of the UK and trumps parliamentary sovereignty. A supermajority is required to amend it.", then could the following parliament revoke it with a simple majority or not? Would the Queen have to step in to solve the impasse? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope... because no matter how big the stone may be, Parliament can simply pass a law that declares it duly "lifted". (its good to be the parliament!) Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't part of the point of this discussion that this doesn't happen? The traditional view is that parliament can make laws concerning anything except their laws can't prevent a future parliament from changing or reversing the law. Therefore while parliament may pass a law saying a stone can't be lifted, their law doesn't stop a future parliament from changing or reversing said law. Whether they actually have to explicitly reverse or change said law, or just pass another law saying the stone is lifted I'm not sure, it doesn't affect the hypothetical outcome which is parliament can change or remove said law. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though most of the UK constitution is mostly unwritten, there are a few written documents. The Magna Carta (or the acts that replaced it) specifically says that the Queens has to follow the advice of the Privy Counsel, so could that act be amended to move a bit of power from Parliament to the courts? I still feel like parliamentary sovereignty must come from somewhere, and that somewhere has to be amendable. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the "traditional" conclusion. It was exemplified in a 1955 article by Henry William Rawson Wade, who was also quoting Dicey and Edward Coke but they'd actually come to a similar conclusion by separate reasoning. The modern view, is, as the courts said in Jackson v Attorney General (still writing that one, I'm afraid), that if legislation posed a significant threat to rights, the courts would have to change their "traditionalist" view. The other problem is European legislation. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 09:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the German constitution has a clause that forbids changing the constitution as far as basic civil rights are concerned. There has been, I understand, some debate on whether such a limitation can in fact be valid, but there it is.--Rallette (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. For both the UK's unwritten constitution and Germany's written constitution, it seems very odd to me to say that there are things that can never be altered. Canada's Parliament is based on the UK one, yet here there's nothing you can't do to the distribution of powers between branches of government and levels of government if you have enough agreement of the House, the Senate, every province, and a referendum. Could the UK Parliament give the courts binding review power by amending the 1066 law that created Parliament in the first place, or by amending the Magna Carta to allow the Queen to disallow laws that violated human rights? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't answer your question, of course, but you might be interested to know that the US constitution has exactly two unamendable provisions:
The slave trade cannot be banned before the year 1808. This seems to be of limited practical import at the current time.
No state, without its consent, can be deprived of equal representation in the Senate.
The obvious question is, can an amendment first remove clause 2., and then a later amendment make the states unequal in the Senate? I don't know. --Trovatore (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the US Supreme Court would allow that loophole. However, don't think that the US constitution is unamendable: I think that section means that you need the permission of the states being negatively affected to make an amendment. The Canadian constitution does something similar; most amendments can be made with seven provinces, but a few sections, including the amending formula, require all provinces to agree, thus preventing seven provinces from ganging up on the others. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely not a legal expert, but it seems that there is real uncertainty about how parliamentary sovereignty interacts with human rights laws, particularly the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. See [2] and [3] for some discussion - the former article points out that the current president of the Supreme Court has claimed that the courts may begin to see certain acts of parliament as 'constitutional statutes', and continue to apply them even if parliament repeals them. I would guess that the question of whether parliament can place limits on its own powers is basically moot - no government is likely to try this. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
