>>99
You walked right into this one...
>It has been reformed countless times, but like Theseus's ship, it is still the basis for all constitutional legislation in the UK.
And, might I add, a model to which every "constitution" refers to, directly or indirectly. The American founding fathers knew it, as much as the French first republicans did, since the magna carta was the first major reinterpretation of Roman law, the "Jus Commune" from wich "contitutio" is derived. Both the French and Americans borrowed extensively from English law, and knowingly so.
Here is the thing: every company, corporation or nation-state that undergoes constitution I.E. incorporates itself needs a charter. The name has changed, but the purpose is the same.
A "constitution" is a charter, nothing more and nothing less.
Now, the implementation of any charter differs greatly whether it is drafted in the 13th century or the 18th, and whether it is a federation, a confederation, a constitutional monarchy, a company or even a student union, but in essence it works the same.
The charter, or constitution, defines the limits of the governing bodies, and the rights of the governed bodies.
That hasnt changed since the Romans, and the magna carta is derived from that, just as much as the US constitution is. The magna carta was the first charter to ensure that emperors, or kings, or presidents couldnt just make up laws as they saw fit. They work the same, but with different names and different means. And to that you got to add the bill of rights, the habeus corpus provisos and a good number of other "constitutional" texts, both in the US and UK.
Take your elemental comprehension of constitutional law and ram them up your snizz. What you are doing is taking a soundbyte like "the UK doesnt have a text called THE constitution" and making some irrelevant argument out of it.
Go back to the school-yard to play with the other kids who say "pwned".
>>97
Any better?