>>102 >>103
1) I am not British.
2) I dont care for wikipedia. You may have mistaken me for someone else, but then, you already have shown you are not above idle assumptions and self serving conclusions about things you have no way of knowing anything about.
3) Parliement, like congress is the only law maker. Courts dont make law, they interpret it. Also, I dont think you understand the concept of judicial review. The supreme court can send back a law to the legislator on a case they take on. There is no review per se.
4) Constitutional reform is in no way simpler in the UK than the US, but it does happen (the word amendment comes to mind), usually after much talk and very specific yet hard to attain voting conditions.
5) The Monarch has a theoritical overlook on parliement, but it is seldom used, and almost never was except in times of civil war. BTW, Presidents all over the globe can dissolve the House of Commons, congress or whatever flavor parliement they have, as well as suspending civil liberties, including in the US. It's included in the provisos of martial law. (Writ of Habeas Corpus? Executive orders?)
6) The US bill of rights is extremely similar to the UK one, and they have influenced one another for two centuries now.
7) You have no idea what you are talking about to a point where it is almost funny. Enjoy your delusions of absolutes and vague nationalistic assumptions.