Congress does seem to function like that, in a way that the HoC doesn't (at least not to that extent). Odd, I wonder why one and not the other - surely there is something beyond televising that has done this.
The argument for cameras in court has always struck me as weak nowadays given how easily you can access opinions online and eventually get the audio.
It probably has to do with the superiority of the parliamentary system. The House of Commons is essentially where all power is centralized. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are all members and are all accountable. The system here in the US has resorted to pointing fingers. In this current political paradigm, all fingers are pointed at the Senate. We have too many veto points. The Founders intended for periodic change, but too many believe the Constitution arrived on stone tablets from Jesus Christ himself.
1. Hasn't the UK replaced the law lords with a separate supreme court that is outside the power of parliament?
2. I have read the UK has an unwritten constitution. How much "teeth" that has as a practical I don't know, but whatever its degree of relevance, perhaps with a supreme court now operating, the unwritten constitution might become more written perhaps over time.
3. Do you know why the UK was the sole place on earth (passed on to its colonies of course) that developed a common law system where cases have precedential value?The UK does indeed have a Supreme Court now, although I'm not entirely sure how it functions relative to the system here in the US. I do believe it is significantly weaker than SCOTUS, but that has more to do with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I wasn't arguing that that is a better idea though. There was
this (R (Miller) v The Prime Minister) major case a couple years ago that involved the constitutional powers of the Prime Minister (through the Queen) over Parliament.
I don't think an unwritten constitution would work in most places (and certainly not here in the US). While the UK isn't the only constitutional monarchy (also excluding the Commonwealth) in the world, it is a pretty rare form of government. I do believe the existence of the monarchy has much to do with the nature of the unwritten constitution. I would've thought that perhaps common law came out the same way, but I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe that. Monarchy was the default form of government for most of the world for many years and yet the UK (and its progeny) are the only countries with common law. It could be geography though. Island nations have tended to evolve in a way quite different from their continental counterparts and UK is definitely exceptionally unique.
My point with the previous post was that televising the House of Commons hasn't resulted in the same partisan rancor that has happened in this country through televising both Houses of Congress. When you televise the House of Representatives or the Senate, you're only getting part of the show. In the UK, the House of Commons is effectively the whole show, particularly when the Prime Minister or a Cabinet member is speaking.
Poll
