Illustrative of the British significance of "unconstitutional" is quoted the following, written in 1910: "It is an undoubted rule of the English constitution that the king shall not refuse his assent to a bill which has passed both Houses of Parliament, but it is certainly not a law. Should the king veto such a bill his action would be unconstitutional, but not illegal."[107-2] A corresponding American example might be furnished by the action of an American president in issuing an order, without being authorized thereto by Congress, temporarily repealing part of a tariff bill. Such an act being outside of the scope of a president's authority would, if reviewed by a court as part of the ratio decidendi of a case, be held unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
{108}
These British and American usages of "constitution" and "unconstitutional" are reflected in the five other Pan-Angle nations. It consequently behoves one to use either of these words with careful attention to the meaning desired. But of each of the seven nations it may be said: that it is governed under a constitution; that some part of its constitution is written; and that through its constitution, however amendable, ultimate control of all questions is in the voters.
Immediate legislative control of these seven nations is in legislatures composed of representatives who act on behalf of the voters, and subject to restrictions, if any, by the voters only. Until 1911, one nation, the British Isles afforded an exception to this as its legislative power was shared by persons who owed their position to their birth. This instance of presentation in a national legislature which was composed otherwise of elected representatives expired before 1911. Since that date the House of Lords exists not as a part of the legislature but as a consultative body subservient to the will of the House of Commons. To-day the legislatures of the Pan-Angle nations are in all cases representative and the representatives, however elected or appointed act on behalf of the voters.[108-1] Those that are considered appointed are {109} in reality chosen by a method of indirect election. For example, in Canada and in New Zealand the representatives who form the upper houses are chosen by the majority in the lower houses at the time of their election. The fact that these "legislators may, in the Canadian case, hold office for life does not affect the fact that they are elected, but concerns only their terms of office. In New Zealand the terms of office of some members of the upper house is for life, whereas more recent members have been chosen for a period of years. In the United States, according to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, the members of the upper house were formerly chosen by the state legislatures. They are now, by the provisions of the Constitution, elected directly.[109-1] In Australia the upper house members are chosen by the voters organized in voting districts larger than those electing representatives. This last is the method toward which the choice of upper house members seems in Pan-Angle nations to be approaching. The discontent in New Zealand and {110} Canada at their present methods and the recent change in America indicate this trend. This tendency emphasizes the insistence of the voters that representatives are responsible only to the voters.
That such representatives are subject to restrictions, if any, by the voters only, is a statement qualified solely by the technical exception that some of the Britannic nations act under Constitutions enacted for them by another nation, viz. the British Isles. This exception is more true in theory than in reality. If in some of the Britannic nations, such as New Zealand and Newfoundland, there have been no ratifications of their respective frameworks of government, nevertheless the whole spirit of the people in these countries, as well as in Canada, where a like state of affairs exists, and in Australia and South Africa where ratifications have occurred on what is in each case substantially their present Constitution, makes evident the tendency of each one of these nations to regard its Constitution as its own act.[110-1] Consequently, it is fair to say that acting under authority of the voters, representatives carry out the national will in each of the seven Pan-Angle nations.
That executive or administrative control is in charge of elected persons is true without exception {111} in these seven nations. The methods of choosing who shall so administer, may be designated respectively as the British and the American. Under both plans the executive is chosen by indirect popular election. The British system produces a prime minister elected by a majority of the more popular (in the British Isles the sole) chamber of the legislature. This prime minister associates about himself certain other men from the same chamber to carry on the government for a certain time, which may be a shorter and therefore an uncertain time. In the American system the people elect representatives, called the electors, to carry out the election of a president. This forlorn novelty, the Electoral College, shows the futility among Pan-Angles of new-fangled institutions. In all other ideas, the framers of the American Constitution of 1787 followed the evolved and known usages of the race. "It was only when they came to construct the machinery for the election of the President that they left the field of American experience and English example and devised an arrangement which was so original that it was destined to break down almost as soon as it was put in operation."[111-1] The true election is no longer by the electors, but by the people of each state using their allotted number of electors as so many counts in favour of one candidate.[111-2] The president associates about himself a group of men chosen from the nation at large. These men act as {112} secretaries to administer departments in behalf of the president, and have no seat in the legislative branch of the government. These two systems are the types used as models throughout the Pan-Angle self-governing areas.
In the two plans we have popular election with virtual similarity. This is remarked in the following comment on the choice, in 1841, of a British national executive: "But the Reform Act of 1832 introduced a new order of things. In 1835 the result of a general election was for the first time the direct cause of a change of ministry, and in 1841 a House of Commons was elected, for the express purpose of bringing a particular statesman into power. The electorate voted for Sir Robert Peel, and it would have been as impossible for the house then elected to deny him their support as it would be for the college of electors in the United States to exercise their private judgment in the selection of a president."[112-1] The results of parliamentary general elections in the British Isles are announced on newspaper bulletin boards in terms of votes for the leaders of the opposing parties, just as in America the state vote is credited directly to the presidential candidates.
Adherence to either the American or British type of executive does not connote a corresponding similarity in other governmental respects. Australia has a British style executive in connection with an American style legislature. Moreover, Australia's written Constitution has been left unfixed in certain matters, so that, if after trial the British system of executive is found wanting, and some modification {113} shall seem better, a change may be made without the need of constitutional amendment.[113-1]
While representatives are elected to carry out the executive will of the voters under both the British and the American systems, the methods of discharging that duty present differences. These may be summed up in the statement that the British executives take the form of a responsible cabinet; and the American executives, both federal and state, take the form of a cabinet which is not in the same sense responsible. An explanation lies in the race's experience with executives.
The Teuton executive was in the form of an elected king who carried out the wishes of the majority which elected him. He could be and was deposed at the will of his constituents. In short, he was a spokesman. As the nationality of the British Isles crystallized, this spokesman assumed his powers were not subject to recall by his {114} fellow-citizens; considered his office hereditary; and undertook to extend his functions in his own right, not by right of being the spokesman of a majority to whom he was responsible.