> surely that Act is by definition unlawful?

Whose definition?

Answer: The Supreme Court decides the definition of things. Its only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says so.

That's how the USA can get away with... I dunno... the Office of Censorship in 1941. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship). Definitions change, not only due to different members on the Supreme Court, but also due to different circumstances (WW2 meant that the Supreme Court was willing to ignore the obvious incursion into the 1st Amendment, at least temporarily)

EDIT: I always forget that it was actually the Office of War Information that did the Hollywood Censorship thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...), rather than the Office of Censorship.

> Whose definition?

I guess that's the underlying problem

I'm not sure how you fix it really, though not having direct political appointees as top judges might be a good start

(maybe put an LLM in charge of a supreme court? I kid, I kid)

You do have a King though. What would happen if the PM went to see him to form a government and they disagreed? The King is the one with armed guards, military rank and a fortress.

As part of his coronation, the King has sworn an oath to uphold the Law and to respect the primacy of Parliament. Not appointing the PM and his government has serious consequences as the PM is the leader of Parliament, which is the institution that has actually restored monarchy after the Glorious Revolution and which actually bankrolls the armed forces, and which was ultimately elected according to the Law by the citizens.

The king is the de facto ruler, to say otherwise is being pedantic.

No, this is pedantic::

De facto means in fact. Given that the king does no governing no, he is not, in fact, the ruler. You may be looking for de jure, though I question even that.

No, he's the ceremonial head of state. There's a polite fiction that all power comes from him, but he can't actually make anyone do anything.

If he tried, people would say no. If he insisted, he'd get tossed out on his ear.

The king of the UK still has to respect the Law. Being king does not mean that one can do as one pleased, or that there are no checks and balances. The last English king who tried to become an absolute ruler caused the English Civil War and was put on the chopping block by Parliament, as a matter of fact.