A tweet with the caption:
"WHY DID NO KINGS CHANGE THEIR NAME SO THAT THEY DONT CRITICISE THE MONARCHIES IN BRITAIN AND BELGIUM HOLY SHIT IM GOING TO CHOKE LAUGHING"

And a screenshot attached of a Wikipedia article on No Kings: 
"Related demonstrations are planned on the same day in the United Kingdom and Europe, using the alternative name No Tyrants: Vote Early to avoid confusion with anti-monarchic movements in countries with constitutional monarchies. This version invites United States citizens living, studying, or visiting in Europe to participate in the No Kings demonstrations."
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 27 points 16 hours ago (8 children)

But what about le constitution? Have you considered that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 15 hours ago (7 children)

    the brits dont even have one!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 hours ago

    "Constitution" is just a fancy word that makes Americans feel like they were the first and best at something.

    You can call a core foundational set of laws whatever you want, and you can have something called a "Constitution" that leaves lots of institutional and procedural and justicial gaps, in addition to leaving 90% of its denizens without a full complement of rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

    A br*t I know always talks about how it's actually really good that their's no formal constitution because the government can just shift to meet the current age. Like, my guy, you have human shit in your river, what the fuck are you talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

    having a formal constitution doesn't make a difference to the rivers, am*ricans have one and the cuyahoga regularly caught fire until the 70s


  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

    It's actually awesome that there isn't any document that defines which rights are at the basis of the functioning of the state and its relationship with its subjects, and who those subjects are, because that means the state can just ignore people's needs and unperson whoever they think will win them the consent from the masses to keep ignoring them (read: migrants and Trans people).

    Not that having a constitution would stop them from doing that, but at least it would put an extra step in place, and it's wild the pretense isn't being kept at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

    the brits dont even have one!

    they'll tell you that they do have one, but they just... prefer not to write it down:

    The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution.

    they're quite committed to the bit, even going so far as having a whole thing they call "UK constitutional law" (replete with varieties of court dress).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment