quote:

ORIGINAL: susan34B

From the British perspective,your "Founding Fathers" were an 18th century version of Al-Qieda....just a bunch of terrorists.
There goes any chance I ever had of getting a visa!!

You don't have to run for cover. You know how it is. Whoever wins the war gets to write the history books. Incidently, the American Civil War is still called the "War of Northern Aggression" by much of the South.

Yes,our laws and decisions on interpretation of the law are based on case-law and it's review by the appellant courts.Judging from posts on here we are lucky not to have a written constitution.

Maybe so, but that would drive me nuts. i'm anal that way. i like things written down.

In the matter of the ruling on segregation in schools,as we never practiced segregation,the question never arose,although there is law regarding racial discrimination and human rights. 

i know you didn't practice segregation. My point (and i think Politesub answered it) was, if that kind of immoral law *had* been passed in the U.K., what steps might be taken to remove it, without the support of Parliament.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

New laws are passed by Parliament. They alone have the power as they are the elected body ( By the people for the people if you like )

Same here. But the President can veto a bill before it becomes law, and Congress, with enough votes, can override a Presidential veto. The Supreme Court can overrule unconstitutional laws, but not before the case actually comes before them. That usually means that there's a significant time lapse between when a law is passed, and when the Supreme Court can overturn it.

The UK Courts use precedent to decide how an individual law is interpreted. The Supreme Court here is the highest court of the land. As far as I know it has the power to refer a law back to Parliament but not to alter it. The reason for this is that it is an unelected body acting for the people. Any law refered back to Parliament is normally not used until the conflict between old and existing law is passed ( again as far as I know )

"Normally not used" is where i see the danger. Legally, is there anything preventing them from using the law, if they don't feel like taking the Court's suggestion and changing it?

Basically both the Supreme Court and the House of Lords act as a check on Parliament but dont have the power to over rule. ( again due to Parliament being elected )

i guess what i don't understand is how much a check they can really be, if they don't have the power to overrule. Excuse my ignorance, but what is the House of Lords?

As for old laws, some sections of the Magna Carta are still on the law books. Others have been reworded and updated over time. Kind of like an ongoing process. The following link on Parliamentary Sovereignty helps explain things.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

Thanks, i appreciate it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



Being born and educated below the Mason Dixon line and having read much of what was said concerning the American Civil War, and living in three different states in the same region, I never heard the term "War of Northern Aggression" until well into my 30's, stumbling upon that item in  some magazine in an opinion column I think, written by someone from far outside the region, who likewise was familiar with the ubiquity of the term in the South.  I did not realize how thoroughly unobservant I've been all along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



Being born and educated below the Mason Dixon line and having read much of what was said concerning the American Civil War, and living in three different states in the same region, I never heard the term "War of Northern Aggression" until well into my 30's, stumbling upon that item in  some magazine in an opinion column I think, written by someone from far outside the region, who likewise was familiar with the ubiquity of the term in the South.  I did not realize how thoroughly unobservant I've been all along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

No question. I'd have thought the context for your country's past career as a British colony (apart from the bits that were French or Spanish colonies, of course) was going to be relevant, and some knowledge of UK parliamentary debates about the colonies, and trading conies' approach to these in the 18th century would probably be a big help in understanding why the American Revolution happened in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

if I am remembering correctly (keeping in mind that we are talking over 30 yrs ago), those things WERE given a nod (Louisiana Purchase, etc.), but the politics of the other countries weren't gone into much depth on.. really only our reaction to the immediate politics that triggered our response.
AND the things that had worldwide (at the time) effects.  Rome, etc.  but those were all given MAYBE a chapter in a book, if that

(again, to the best of my recollection)

I am sleepy so I apologize if I am not as clear as I would like to be...