The Constitution Question

OK, so it struck me that I have readers from both the UK and the US, and I wanted to pose a question to you all.

The US constitution is practically revered. It's straightforward (relatively) and purposely difficult to mess with. It gives American citizens a document to point to and say

"See? These are my rights, right here! Now back the hell off!"

Now, I'm the last person to say America is perfect, but this does strike me that they 'The People' have gotten things resoundingly right when it comes to keeping government in check (though, to give credit where credit is due, it was the Swedish who did it first I believe). After all, the system has some flaws, but it lends a certain credibility to an argument when a judge can hold all laws against such a yardstick.

The UK on the other hand has what some might call an 'organic' constitution. You know, organic, like a plant. Constantly mutating, easily cut down with a machete. Please spare me the bleating about Parliamentary Sovreignty and democratically elected representatives.

Being democratically elected means very little, especially as under the current system so large a proportion of votes are potentially wasted.

Besides, Hitler was democratically elected. Extreme example? Fine, what about Bush.

Get my drift?

So here's my question:

Codified Constitution for the UK. Yes? No? Don't give a crap?

email me: tesseractstory@hotmail.com

TK