Source: Law & Liberty
by Daniel Johnson
“Ever since England’s first written quasi-constitution—the 1653 Instrument of Government which created Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate but lasted only four years before being superseded—there have been documents that might have evolved into genuine constitutional frameworks. Yet even those that have acquired permanent symbolic status, such as the 1689 Bill of Rights, are still subject to the interpretative vagaries of the zeitgeist. This is, of course, true of the US Constitution, too, as the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years have cast a new light on doctrines such as the separation of powers or the efficacy of checks and balances. A written constitution does not necessarily guarantee stability, let alone certainty. But in the British case, the absence of definitive rules is integral to the character, even the existence, of the state, which has always prided itself on its flexibility.” (11/04/26)
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/renewing-the-eternal-contract/