[QUOTE=xilman;142138]There are any number of documents which influence common law and/or statute law, Magna Carta and BoR amongst them, but there is no formal written constitution.[/QUOTE]

Seems fairly obvious whence the difference - in the US there was a fairly clearly defined and narrow time period which serves as a "founding event" for the democracy, whereas in England democracy had to emerge very cautiously over centuries, in fits and starts, under the monarchical system. When the US was founded, the founders were able to use the history of that long painful process, pick what they liked [e.g. English common law], dispense with what they didn't [Kings and Queens and the entire peerage system] and make a clean start. Your pain was our gain, as it were.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;142158]Seems fairly obvious whence the difference - in the US there was a fairly clearly defined and narrow time period which serves as a "founding event" for the democracy, whereas in England democracy had to emerge very cautiously over centuries, in fits and starts, under the monarchical system. When the US was founded, the founders were able to use the history of that long painful process, pick what they liked [e.g. English common law], dispense with what they didn't [Kings and Queens and the entire peerage system] and make a clean start. Your pain was our gain, as it were.[/QUOTE]Sounds like a good summary to me.

However, there are still interesting by-ways to explore.

For instance, slavery was outlawed in (what became) the UK long, long before it was in the US. Come to that, it was outlawed in the British Empire a generation before it was in the US. The last US slave died in the 1960's AFAIK.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;142195]Sounds like a good summary to me.

However, there are still interesting by-ways to explore.

For instance, slavery was outlawed in (what became) the UK long, long before it was in the US. Come to that, it was outlawed in the British Empire a generation before it was in the US. The last US slave died in the 1960's AFAIK.[/QUOTE]

True enough - one of the rather ironic twists in the post-colonial comparative history of the US and the UK. On the flip side, one could argue that much of Victorian era "progress" was achieved on the suffering of a vast underclass whose living conditions and limited social mobility made their lot little better than that of the U.S. slaves - just that the invisible shackles of wage slavery make for less dramatic imagery than real chains. I grant you that outright lynchings were likely fewer on your side of the pond.

Back to the "Lying Scumbags" theme
 

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin]NYTimes Op-Ed: Blizzard of Lies[/url]: [i]Anyone with an Internet connection can disprove many assertions of the McCain campaign.[/i]
[quote][i]By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 11, 2008
[/i]
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

...

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin][More][/url][/quote]

[quote=ewmayer;142201]True enough - one of the rather ironic twists in the post-colonial comparative history of the US and the UK. On the flip side, one could argue that much of Victorian era "progress" was achieved on the suffering of a vast underclass whose living conditions and limited social mobility made their lot little better than that of the U.S. slaves - just that the invisible shackles of wage slavery make for less dramatic imagery than real chains. I grant you that outright lynchings were likely fewer on your side of the pond.[/quote]

Agreed but that is an issue of class. And the underclass in the US didn't have it any better than the underclass in the UK. Visit one of the historic 19th century tenements in New York next time you are there and you'll get the idea. Most Italian and Irish immigrants had a pretty hard life. Slaves were a pretty major step below that.

[QUOTE=xilman;142138]There are any number of documents which influence common law and/or statute law, Magna Carta and BoR amongst them, but there is no formal written constitution.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution isn't such a shiny example to follow these days anyway.
It should be called the Reconstitution...just water it down. Signing Statements help.

Alaskan Lumberjack song:
[url]http://thecentrecannothold.net/2008/09/03/the-alaskan-lumberjack-song/[/url]

[quote=99.94;142226]Alaskan Lumberjack song:
[URL]http://thecentrecannothold.net/2008/09/03/the-alaskan-lumberjack-song/[/URL][/quote]
Yes - I thought of Michael Palin when I first heard of her:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;142267]Yes - I thought of Michael Palin when I first heard of her:smile:[/QUOTE]

Great Minds apparently think alike. :)

It's a bit runnier than you'd like it sir....

Beautiful plumage!