...The British Constitution Question One: Explain the term ‘conventions’ as used in the extract. [5marks] 1. Conventions can be defined as a way in which something is usually done or within political terms: an agreement between countries covering particular matters, especially one less formal than a treaty. They can also be defines as accepted practices or traditions that contribute to the UK’s constitutional framework. Traditionally a convention is never broken as it is similar to a tradition however in some cases these conventions are broken yet still justified due to circumstance, situations, culture, religion and some might argue corruption. Then it could easily be argued that Britain doesn’t have a ‘conventional constitution’. The British Constitution in itself is unwritten but that certain matters are written which can comprise a constitution, in other words the British constitution is codified and uncodified and so a written constitution is a formal document defining the nature of the constitutional settlement, the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and governments in a codified form however an uncodified System is a type of constitution where the fundamental rules often take the form of customs or conventions. The UK constitution is mainly made up of uncodifed regulations that are followed as conventions. Many argue that this flexible constitution since it allows the constitution to adapt naturally to changing circumstances; this is...
Words: 271 - Pages: 2
...Should the British constitution remain an uncodified constitution? The definition of a constitution is the set of rules that outline the fundamental principles, laws or policies, in a country according to the government. There are various features that create a constitution for example, they can be seen as rigid or flexible. Flexible meaning that laws can be easily changed, whereas rigid they have to go through a lengthy process involving some form of referendum. However, the feature I am analysing is whether the British constitution should be codified or uncodified. The UK is an example of an uncodified constitution. Uncodified means that, unlike other democratic constitutions, it has not been brought together into one single document. Should Britain codify their constitution similarly to almost every other constitution? A codified constitution means the constitution is all collected in one single document, it is commonly known as a written constitution. One hand there are arguments supporting the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution. If it were to be introduced there is an argument that it would make the rules clearer. If they are in a single document, there are more clearly understood and create less confusion as they aren’t spread across several different documents. Another argument for codified constitution is that it would undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The government could not interfere with the constitution if it was codified...
Words: 529 - Pages: 3
...The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were revolutionary since they changed a lot of things that favored the development of America and protected the citizens' rights. We could realize that by taking a look at the America today because these documents have affected the evolution of America. According to Digital History, the result from these documents are phenomenal, "the United States has been radically transformed over the past two centuries. Its population has soared from just 4 million to nearly 300 million. The federal budget has risen from $4 million in 1790 to over $1 trillion today" 1. The most important thing that they are still using the same governed structure stated by these documents even now 2. The US Constitution was established to create and change the governmental system by eliminating the monarchical society, and the Bill of Rights was a shield that helped people to prevent any downfall from the US Constitution. Both of them were the main factors to cut off the appearance of British government, reduce the overuse of power, and create the new and better governmental system....
Words: 589 - Pages: 3
...Bogdanor and S Vogenauer; Enacting a British Constitution: some problems’, 2008. One must understand that most of the countries now have a written and a codified Constitution, such as the United States of the America, Malaysia, India, Australia and etc. As we know these countries are under the British colonies before getting their independence. Hence now there are only three states in the world which lacks a written constitution, namely Britain, New Zealand, and Israel. A constitution is a set of rules which defines the structures and functions of a state, particularly, will define the principle of institutions, the legislature, the executive, judiciary and the nature and the scope of their powers. Moreover, Bradley and Ewing have defined a constitution as ‘ a document having special legal sanctity which sets out the framework and the principle functions of the organs of government within the state and declares the principles by which those organs must operate’. (A Bradley and K Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law (14th edn, Pearson/Longman, 2007), p.4) [1]In the introduction of a state’s constitution, there will be a discovery of a preamble, for example, in the USA the preamble states that: ‘We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution’. (Article 2 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution.)[2] This shows the society as a sovereign power. An important question that often rises is “Should Britain adopts a written constitution”? This has always been the topic of debate...
Words: 2597 - Pages: 11
...The new Labour government took power in 1997 began to reform the British constitution, introducing the Human rights act, Devolution and some reform of the House of Lords among other less important changes. Unfortunately Labour did not complete those reforms and a great deal was left undone. The question since then is how much has the constitution been reformed and how positive effect these reforms have had. There is no doubt that the HRA has transformed Britain. It created a means by which government and other bodies could be prevented from abusing our rights. The courts were given powers to enforce rights. This has meant that we now have more privacy and have the right to be treated equally under the law. However, the HRA was not made biding on Parliament and so governments can still abuse rights. This has been seen with anti-terrorism acts which give the police great powers including the ability to arrest suspects without trial. The HRA also does not protect us against the growth of surveillance and stop search powers or the prevention of some demonstrations. Similarly, the FOI act has been partly effective as it enabled us to know about the MP’s expense scandal and other aspects of government. However government can still conceal sensitive information thus perhaps the act should have been stronger. The introduction of Devolution as well supported in Scotland and Wales has made a huge difference in those countries as well as in Northern Ireland, the people of those countries...
Words: 844 - Pages: 4
...The British constitution has become increasingly codified, discuss. A constitution is a set of rules that defines the manner a country is run. The British constitution is said to be an unwritten constitution, more accurately it is uncodified as much more of the British constitution is written down, however, they are not all written down in a single document like a codified constitution would require as how the US is, however draws from several different sources such as; statutes laws, common law, conventions, EU laws, authoritative documents etc. Statute law, is a written law passed down by parliament for example the human rights act of 1998 which brought the European convention on human rights into British law, conventions is another source of the British constitution, they are unwritten laws considered binding on members of the political community for example the Salisbury convention which made sure that the house of lords does not obstruct proposals contained in the governments most recent manifesto. Has the British constitution become increasingly codified? Its not the case that the British constitution is being written in a single document but in fact that more of the constitution is being written down as there is increasingly more written statutes that have great constitutional impacts as they are passed by parliament making them more rigid therefore harder to change as parliament has ultimate sovereignty, however you could say the EU laws are exempt from this,...
Words: 845 - Pages: 4
...The UK needs a codified constitution: A constitution is a set of laws, rules and practices that authorize the state to govern, also specifying the powers of the governing institution and the formal relationships between them, civilian and the state. There are numerous types of constitution. Constitutions could be codified and uncodified, unitary (Centralized government makes legislation, and passes it down through local authorities) or federal (Power travels up through regional bodies to the centralized state.) The United Kingdom is unique in other words there are just 4 nations around the globe that have a written constitution and the UK is one of them. The others being Israel, Canada and New Zealand. On the other hand the USA is an example of a codified constitution. A codified constitution is a constitution in which key written documents are gathered inside a single document, it is generally known as a written constitution. Additionally they are entrenched, enjoying the protection of higher court. Moreover in a codified constitution laws can only be amended by special provisions. Therefore making it rigid, in other words it is extremely difficult to pass laws in a codified constitution. Alongside this, an uncodifed constitution relies on various sources meaning it is not written down in a single document, this is in contrast to a codified constitution where all the laws are to be found in one single document. In addition an uncodified constitution is not entrenched and...
Words: 968 - Pages: 4
... Public law concepts have not kept pace. In the words of an author of the book reviewed here, reflecting on the concept of ‘the state’ and the problem of sovereignty: in political as in constitutional legal theory, we still need to cut off the King’s head,1 as we are still entrenched in the philosophical and constitutional language of the 19th century.2 But recently, with European integration and globalisation, change has also occurred in the traditional concepts of public law such as “state” or “constitution”. The book edited by Bamforth and Leyland is about this change over the last thirty years or so.3 “Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution” is a significant contribution to a better understanding of how public law is transformed, in Great Britain and elsewhere. The title of the book as well as its introduction (pp. 1-26) state that its central theme is the transformation of the British constitution into a “multi-layered constitution.” This is meant to refer to a constitution that “contains multiple, but inter-connected and sometimes overlapping European and national layers”,4 where “power (both legislative and political) has been spread away from the Westminister Parliament, both ‘upwards’ to the European Union and ‘downwards’ to the devolved assemblies.”5 The editors’ claim is that this restructuring of the constitutional architecture of the United Kingdom is occurring while there is also a rebalancing of the roles of the courts and parliament in holding the executive...
Words: 4828 - Pages: 20
...The UK government is constrained by the British Constitution Constitutions are fundamental rules that regulate how a state or any other type of organisation is supposed to be governed. A quote by the UCL Constitution Unit “Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens”. The points I would like to raise that would support this statement are that the UK constitution is uncodified, Parliamentary Sovereignty, government control over parliament. However there are major points that would contradict with this statement; Rule of law, European court of human rights, referendums. The fact that the British Constitution is uncodified means that it can be flexible which means that I can be easily changed and adapted according to the circumstance, also it means that not every single thing is written down on one document it is spread out in many. This means that once there is a matter that the government needs to deal with they won’t be restricted by the constitution. For example the US constitution is codified which means that everything is on one document which would restrict them from doing anything that may be wrong now but believed to right in the past. Furthermore a law that is written by the US constitution that has mainly obstructed the way people want to live their lives is “people have the right to bare arms”...
Words: 836 - Pages: 4
...A constitution is a set of rules which may be written or unwritten, establishes the distribution of power in a political system, the limits of government jurisdiction, the rights of citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself. An uncodified constitution is unwritten, or at least not written all in one document. The constitution in the UK is found in a variety of sources, which are mainly statute and common law, conventions and traditions, European law etc. The British constitution itself is flexible as it allows the constitutions to evolve and generally adapt to the changing society. Compared to the US whose constitution is described as ‘rigid’; through the struggle of being able to amend constitutions; for example, the ‘right to bear arms’ amendment, which basically gives registered citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The topic of amending this constitution is very controversial, however due to the constitution being codified the process is very difficult, as is it entrenched and has been a part of the US culture for centuries. In this essay, I will be analysing the strengths of the British constitution and comparing it to a codified constitution, Some of the arguments for retaining the uncodified system are that; codification produces ‘judicial tyranny’, uncodified constitutions are more flexible and lastly that an uncodified system has worked well in the UK for many years and broadly speaking not many people have protested against an uncodified system...
Words: 924 - Pages: 4
...of Britain’s ‘un-codified’ Constitution Britain are one of the few countries in the world that still posses and un-codified constitution, other states that posses un-codified constitutions are New Zealand and Israel. A constitution is a set of rules which guidelines what the people of the nation and the government have the rights to do, these rules or guidelines are normally printed in one sovereign place. An un-codified constitution differs from this as is not one sovereign book or piece of writing that outlines the rules of the state. This short answer will assess the strengths and weakness of Britain having an un-codified constitution. The first strength to consider is the fact that our un-codified constitution is more flexible then a codified constitution. Many nations find it difficult to pass legislation because the constitution holds the government accountable and protects the individuals. Example of this could be after terrorist attacks Britain was able to quickly pass legislation detaining terror suspects for longer period of time, where as other nations constitutions protected the individuals liberties and prevented their governments from detaining suspects for long periods of time. From the first argument we can see that flexibility is a strength of an un-codified constitution, however it can also be a weakness. Without the codified constitution there is no checks on the government other then the opposition, a codified constitution creates a just political system...
Words: 579 - Pages: 3
...Abstract Having fixed-term Parliaments in the United Kingdom is something that has been debated across the political spectrum for some years and, with the enactment of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, is no longer something which is merely debated, but a political and constitutional reality. The Act came into force with little consultation, research, or advice to or by the Government; it was exceptionally hurried legislation. This means that there is little written on the wider constitutional effects of the Act, and it is exactly that which this essay will try to examine. To analyse the Act’s significance I have looked at the position prior to the Act and what the Act changed, before moving on to examining and critically assessing the plethora of arguments that both sides put forward. A fuller copy of this paper is available upon request. 1 The Position Before the Act and how the Act has Changed it: The changing of election timing in the United Kingdom is something that is not often tampered with. The Meeting of Parliament Act 1694 provided that a general election for Parliament must be held (at most) every three years. The Septennial Act 1715 changed this to a maximum of seven years. Finally the Parliament Act 1911 amended this to provide for a five-year maximum term before a general election must be called. Before the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 the power to dissolve Parliament was retained by the Crown, under the royal prerogative. The royal...
Words: 2598 - Pages: 11
...‘The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose.’ Discuss The UK constitution gives too much power to the executive because of the fusion of powers which makes a parliamentary government; government is in control of parliament. The government of the day can simply pass, repeal or amend any laws; the proposals can also be constitutional changes. This could lead to the possibility of an elective dictatorship to take place, the government that has the majority and comes into power can make constitutional changes and pass any laws with the assistance of the party whip system it possible to make all MPs from the majority party to vote a certain way for example john major had expelled 8 anti-euro sceptic MPs to keep the conservative government united and to pass the laws. Although it can be argued that party whip system makes a decisive government, the MPs who are disciplined are forced to represent the party instead of their constituents. If there was to be a separation of powers it would ensure checks and balances and not give excessive power to government. Also a codified constitution will not allow the government of the day to easily repeal the current constitutional laws that are in place. The royal prerogative powers which was handed to the prime minister by the monarch is fundamentally undemocratic, it allows the government to declare war against anyone even if the public view differs. The public didn’t get to decide if the prime minister should have this power. It was...
Words: 744 - Pages: 3
...March 23 commemorates the passage of what was originally the ‘Lahore Resolution’ (Qarardad i Lahore) and later became better known as the ‘Pakistan Resolution’.In 1941, this Lahore (Pakistan) Resolution became part of the Muslim League constitution and in 1946 it became the basis of the demand for Pakistan. While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League, as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th & 18th September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd of February, 1940 on the constitutional issue, this Session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of federation embodied in the Government of India Act 1935, is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India. It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939 made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935, is based will be reconsidered in consultation with various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslims in India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent. Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session...
Words: 475 - Pages: 2
...------------------------------------------------- too many cooks spoil the broth ------------------------------------------------- It means that if too many people try to do the same thing, they end up ruining it. If you have too many cooks trying to cook one broth or soup, they get in each other's way and end up adding the wrong things. It means that a simple thing like a broth (or a movie script) is better when it doesn't have many authors contributing to it. If more than one cook handles one pot of soup the ingredients like salt, for example, may be doubled or tripled (according to how many cooks handle the pot) thus spoiling it. Too many people trying to do the same thing together are likely to ruin the job. if too many people are involved in something it often gets too complicated. if its used it means that some people need to back off When too many people take charge on a task, it might end up ruining the whole thing. Rosalind is a fictional character and the romantic female lead in the play As You Like It (1600) by William Shakespeare. She is the daughter of the exiled Duke Senior and niece to his usurping brother Duke Frederick. Her father is banished from the kingdom which breaks her heart. She then meets Orlando and falls in love with him. After angering her uncle, she leaves his court for exile in the Forest of Arden. There, she lives disguised as a shepherd named Ganymede with her sweet and devoted cousin, Celia, disguised as his sister, Aliena and...
Words: 2317 - Pages: 10
