What Disease Does gturner Have?

I don't give a shit what it means to "most Americans". It was me that you were originally challenging by insisting that the UK had no constitution. As someone in the know I was telling you you're wrong, but you thought you knew better. Now that you have been shown to comprehensively wrong you have completely moved the goalposts to what "most Americans" think and disingenuously pretend that we were discussing whether or not the UK constitution is codified or not. Utterly and totally dishonest.

And to everyone else, including Dinner on every other topic unrelated to Muslim bashing you're an idiot. You got called on your ignorance and rather that back off, you double down on tap dancing in circles as usual.

There's more than one kind of constitution in the world. The UK has one. Quit while you're behind.

This thread isn't about the English constitution, it's about your disability.

Yes, and all but the UK's seem to be written documents called a "constitution". Says so right on the document.

Do you know what you get if you check Richmond Law's Constitution Finder? Constitutions for just about every country on Earth, but when you come to the UK it gives just two items, neither called the constitution:

The Human Rights Act of 1998
The Statute of Westminster of 1931​

I would call those an act and a statute.

Every time a court rules that something is incompatible with an Act of Parliament, or any other law, then yes it is essentially ruling that something is unconstitutional. It's just not common legal terminology here as Parliament is the supreme legal authority of the UK and therefore it's Acts are out primarily law, whereas in the US your written constitution occupies a position of supremacy over other legislation. We have no need to say "unconstitutional" because we simply cite that something is not in accordance with specific legislation or other law. I'm terribly sorry that you are ignorant to all this, but your lack of knowledge doesn't make it untrue.

If we have no constitution, why do we have entire tomes on it and how could I have gotten a distinction in this area during my studies?

You're just making a complete joke of yourself now. I'm afraid as you're simply highlighting your ignorance about things outside of America.

He's demonstrating why he's on welfare though.

Not true. There is more than one country without a written constitution - and the link in post #57 demonstrates this. So I have already proved you wrong in advance on this and you're once again showing that you don't debate honestly because you don't even afford the other person the courtesy of reading the evidence they produce. Therefore you're intentionally lying again.

Please.

Stop.

Lying.

Well hell, the romance section of the book store has shelves on eternal love but that don't make it real.

This has got to be the most feeble and desperate last ditch response I've ever seen.

So now good ol' militia man is saying constitutional law simply does not exist in the UK just to desperately avoid having to admit he's full of shit.

























Classic. Absolutely and utterly classic.

You utter cockwomble.

Sorry, but in your mindless rush to be wrong you've succeeded yet again!

I said "Do you know what you get if you check Richmond Law's Constitution Finder? Constitutions for just about every country on Earth..."

UK is certainly not the only country not to have a written, codified constitution. Who are the others? Countries that the UK founded, like Canada and New Zealand, and Israel because Ben Gurion said that since the UK doesn't have a constitution, why should we? And of course Saudi Arabia, which doesn't need a Constitution because Allah laid everything out for them in the Koran. And that's pretty much it. I'm sure they may be a few bumps on the map I'm overlooking, but obviously the vast majority of humans on Earth would naturally think of a constitution as a written document named "the Constitution of ..."

Another lie. Or are you claiming there was a second shooter, namely you?

I'm not denying anything. I'm also not admitting anything.

Like half of leftforge, you call that a LIE.

I'm not wasting my time with you anymore gturner. You have been comprehensively proved wrong, and you yourself have proved that you will continue to move the goalposts, ignore what is said to you, ignore the evidence presented to you and lie to pretend your original position isn't what we all know it was (and is there in black and white for all to see). You have demonstrated that you have no capacity to debate in an honest manner and therefore your claim that you are receptive to logical, evidence based argument is not only yet another out and out lie. What's more it shows you are one of those people who are utterly and entirely incapable of ever admitting they are wrong, even if the price of that is making themselves look ridiculous.

I don't need waste my time responding to your throughly debunked lies anymore.

I'm still trying to find a UK law school that has courses in constitutional law that don't describe the class as talking about issues with writing constitutions, studies of the Icelandic constitution, etc. They have to be there because you studied the UK constitution in law school!

Perhaps you can help me out there.

On the plus side of gturner's ledger, his statement about eternal love is probably true. That's one that isn't a lie, and I congratulate him for it.

Yeah, that one was pretty funny.

Are you sure? He seems to be in eternal love with lying.....

Have you ever perhaps looked up "lie" in the dictionary? What they describe wouldn't cover any part of the debate about whether the UK has a constitution, unless perhaps someone claimed that the UK had a written, codified constitution like almost every other country.

Interestingly, the Constitutional Republic of San Marino is simultaneously said to have the oldest continual constitution on Earth and no written constitution at all. It seems to consist of six medieval books on running their government.

Sure.

Public, administrative and constitutional law is one of the eight core subjects required at degree level, and must be studied and passed to go on to take the qualification courses to become either a barrister or solicitor. It can be studied through an LLB degree, Legal Executive studies, the Common Professional Examination or the Graduate Diploma in Law.

Would you like me to continue making you look like an absolute fool?

All your link says about that is:

PUBLIC/CONSTITUTIONAL
One of the most engrossing elements of public law is its current nature and relevance. Study is fast-paced and analytical, as you can find yourself studying the benefits of the relatively new supreme court one day, and arguing for or against House of Lords reform the next. Conceptual issues such as sovereignty of parliament and whether the Crown should be "above the law" ensure that there is plenty of room for debate, and current affairs are just as relevant as historical legislation.

You will quickly grasp the legislative process, and understand the roles of various public bodies, whether looking at judicial reform, ministerial practices or the duty of the executive. Far from a dull overview of the government and courts, public law is an opportunity to really understand the inner workings of English law, and the decisions which affect citizens every day.​

So when did you amend your constitution to set up a new supreme court, and why did you decide not to capitalize it?

American Constitutional Law by Lawrence Tribe, 1470 pages, 4.8 pounds, $108.64

A course on how our politics works or how bills move through the Senate is completely different. You seem to be using "constitution" to refer to how something is put together, not a contract between the government and the people that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches can't disobey.

Heh hehe....cockwomble

You're just repeating your prior stupidity now. All these questions have been answered. A constitution is the structure of the state. Sometimes it is written, sometimes it is codified, sometimes it is unwritten. A written constitution is NOT a contract in of itself, and the only thing that makes the US constitution a contract in a looser, social sense is that it's terms provide for a relationship between the state and it's people. But the core purpose of a written constitution is a document that sets out the basic structure of the state, and this makes it the supreme law. Ours is not in a single documents, but rather is broken. Ours is broken down between Acts of Parliament and all laws, authorities and conventions subordinate to both them and Parliament itself. Parliament and it's Acts are our supreme domestic law. Primary laws are drawn from them, and where, for instance, your constitution sets out the basic rights of the individual and state as primary law, these for us are in Acts of Parliament, predominately the Bill of Rights and all that has come since. When we study constitutional law, we study the relationship between Parliament, the courts, the Crown, the Executive and how they relate to the legal supremacy of Parliament. We do not have a social contract as you would know it as our constitution is built round a supreme Parliament and constitutional monarchy. The fact is that our constitutional structure is fundamentally different from yours - but it does not mean that there is nonetheless no constitutional structure, and therefore we have no constitution. This was your starting point and, yet again, you're trying to wriggle and squirm to pretend that you weren't lying.

You claimed we didn't have a constitution. We do, and this is beyond question. You are wrong and you perpetuated a lie by insisting you weren't, and continue you to do so inspite of the facts.

You aren't going to "win" this one Georgie boy. Deal with it.

My latest derision of choice.

When ours is broken we get really upset about it.

Do you mean autism on the same level as @NotDayton? Or do you mean autism that is on a lower level than that of @Dayton3?

Whatever it is, in got in through the ass.

None of the above. gturner is actually a bot programmed by Borgs to troll Wordforge. I can't believe you suckers fell for it.

Shit, it's the latter.

I totally forgot about the sheer brilliance of NotDayton.

How does that uninteresting bullshit obviate any of the lies that I pointed out?

Could you point those out again please? You folks keep claiming you've pointed out lies without ever actually pointing them out, except for the issue of whether the UK has a "contitution." One might conclude that you're continually lying about it all.