There’s an unwritten constitution, which is still a constitution
I and most if not all constitutional scholars would politely disagree with that. In order for a constitution to be valid, it has to be written down in some form that way everyone can agree to some extent (there will still be some gray areas, like what is/isn’t a right for example) on how society should be governed. If there isn’t a constitution of some kind, it would just be no different than the absolute monarchies of old where they either claim some divine right to rule and do whatever they want or just go as far (like Louis XIV famously declared) to say that they are the state.
He would say “there’s an unwritten constitution, which is still a constitution”. It’s mental.
I and most if not all constitutional scholars would politely disagree with that. In order for a constitution to be valid, it has to be written down in some form that way everyone can agree to some extent (there will still be some gray areas, like what is/isn’t a right for example) on how society should be governed. If there isn’t a constitution of some kind, it would just be no different than the absolute monarchies of old where they either claim some divine right to rule and do whatever they want or just go as far (like Louis XIV famously declared) to say that they are the state.
Are you a constitutional scholar? If so I’d like to ask you about this exact point.
The answer you are looking for is no. I am not a constitutional scholar by any means, but I am interested in the concept of constitutionalism.
Look what’s in the paper today https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/6/6/uks-unwritten-constitution-being-used-to-eject-an-unpopular-pm