...Should the UK have a codified Constitution? (40 marks) A constitution is the fundamental and entrenched rules governing the conduct of an organization or nation state, and it establishes it concept, character and structure. It lays out how a nation is to be run and who runs it. It sets out how government is elected and the powers of the state. It usually is occupied by a Bill of Rights, which is a document that lays out the individual rights of the people of that nation. A constitution cannot be removed as it has been entrenched in the foundations of that country. It can only be altered but as it can be seen in America, this is extremely difficult to do. Within the UK, we currently do not have a codified/ written constitution but has unwritten constitution. This means that our constitution isn’t written down in a single document but is made up of several documents, Acts of Parliament, laws, judicial precedent and traditions. Furthermore, the UK doesn’t have a Bill of Rights but has its rights highlighted under the Human Rights Act 1998, which highlights all the individuals rights. Under the Labour government, there was massive constitutional reforms between the periods of 1997 and 2010 and brought about a greater codification of the British constitution. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalitions introduced further constitutional reforms. In this essay I will highlight the argument that the constitution shouldn’t be codified but also that why there are advantages...
Words: 1343 - Pages: 6
...Advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh its disadvantages In this essay I plan to go against a codified constitution as I believe that our current constitution is fine they way it stands. There are many reason for keeping a un-codified constitution. There will also be some disadvantages to it like there is to everything, but the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. One of the reasons to keep our un-codified constitution is because our system can work well in any terms of crisis or emergencies. Such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks on america. When the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened in america on the 9th of september 2001 a law in the UK was passed against terrorists. The Crime & security act was passed in december of the same year. This act have the government the power to detain any suspected terrorist without trial for at least 28 days. This is one of the advantages of the un-codified constitution that we have in the UK, as this proves we can react fast enough to stop things from getting out of hand. In the USA and other european countries have had a much harder problem with terrorism as they have a fixed constitution. So changing laws takes a long time. Although this is an advantage, in other ways its a disadvantage. This act affects the effect & cross of human rights. With this you could cause distress and harm to a person who may not have convicted crime or any terrorist acts at all. If the UK was to change to a codified constitution it would...
Words: 1041 - Pages: 5
...‘The UK would benefit greatly from the introduction of a fully codified constitution’ Discuss Plan Arguments against * Ruins the doctrine of sovereignty-Parliament sovereignty is effectively beaten. * Judges have to police the constitution and effectively interpreted. – Threat of judicial tyranny. Codified constitutions cannot be interpreted by the public so the judges would have to interpret it which could bring out preferences and values of senior judges * Un-necessary- doesn’t Philly limit governments * Hard to change * Easily outdated * Legal documents created at one point of time rather than a document which has been endorsed by history and created over time Arguments for * Clear rules * One codified document * Limited government * Neutral interpretation * Protecting rights of individual liberty * Education value – highlight certain values and strengthen citizenship Introduction The argument of a codified constitution has been a debated subject for a long time within the UK political spectrum. The argument stands at present moment that if the UK should or should not implement a codified constitution. Both sides of the argument withstand staggering evidence both in favour and factors denouncing the idea being drawn at the same time. The fact of a codified constitution would invoke a greater judicial intervention within the UK – maybe even put the state under risk of judicial tyranny. On codified constitution we have...
Words: 1530 - Pages: 7
...“Britain should adopt a codified constitution”, Discuss. (40 mark) Intro A constitution is a set of rules/principles, which aim to set the duties and powers of government. There are two different types of constitutions, codified (written) and uncodified (unwritten), which the UK is an example of an uncodified and the U.S.A a codified. Codified and Uncodified Constitutions An uncodified constitution is a constitution made from principles that are not formatted into one single document and unlike codified is not authoritative and also not entrenched. A codified constitution is where the principles or rules are collected within a single document. Codified constitutions have three key features, the first is that the document itself is authoritative in the sense it constitutes a ‘higher’ form of law. The other key feature is that It binds all political institutions. And the final key feature is that they are said to be entrenched which means they are difficult to abolish or amend. UK for a Codified Constitution Some people argue that if the UK adopted a codified constitution is a good thing. If it was to be adopted it would significantly change the UK because it would affect: the power of the government and people’s rights and freedom. One of the biggest arguments for adopting a codified constitution is the fact it would make all rules/principles a lot clearer as they would all be in 1 single document and more clearly written meaning it would create less confusion...
Words: 557 - Pages: 3
...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
...retaining its uncodified constitution remains extremely strong. (25 marks) On the one hand it can be argued that Britain should not retain its uncodified constitution because it makes us unusual as only the UK, Israel and New Zealand do not have one. On the other hand it can be argued that Britain should retain its uncodified constitution because of the flexibility of our constitution which would be lost if our constitution was codified. Overall, it can be argued here that the argument for Britain retaining its uncodified has two very strong sides that both have good reasons for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution and not retaining it. Britain should retain its uncodified constitution because the flexibility of the UKs constitution is a great asset that would be lost if we introduced a codified constitution. We have no fundamental/entrenched law that legislation must be compatible with which gives Parliament great flexibility to pass all legislation that is needed to meet current problems. However, this flexibility means that our rights are less well protected for example the gun owners in America have had their rights much better served by the codified constitution that they have than the UK gun owners who suddenly found their weapons banned by the law. Therefore, it is argued that Britain should retain uncodified constitution because of its flexibility. Another reason why Britain should also retain uncodified constitution because a codified one would lead to judicial...
Words: 762 - 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
...Should the UK remain uncodified? The UK runs on an uncodified system, this means that the laws are unwritten and are not in one place. In places such as America they have a codified system, this means the laws and rights are written down and have one source, new laws cannot go against these laws. The codified system allows for the country to adapt to the changing world, it also means that after a crisis laws can be changed very easily and quickly. Additionally, the codified system stops tyranny of the judiciary. On the other hand, an uncodified system means that the people's rights are protected and it limits power, it also makes sure that laws cannot be changed whenever they want. One argument for the UK remaining uncodified is because it allows the country to adapt to a changing world. In places such as America they are very much stuck in constitutional times, for example the constitutions says that everyone has the right to bear arms, this would have been relevant back when the constitution was made and they had just gained their independence. Today having a gun is not necessary in everyday life but the are unable to change the law as it is in the constitution. In the UK it is much easier to change the law as there is not a written constitution, for example in 1996 there was the Dunblane shooting, it did not take long for the government to change the gun laws so this would not happen again and they could keep the people safe. This shows how an uncodified system can really...
Words: 967 - Pages: 4
...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
...KA5- Advantages and disadvantages of codified constitution in the UK A constitution is the system of beliefs and laws by which a country, state, or organization is governed. There are different types of constitution, these include codified or uncodified, unitary or federal and can be seen as rigid or flexible. The UK is an example of an uncodified constitution, however, the US is an example of a codified constitution. This essay will discuss the advantages and the disadvantages of using a codified constitution. An uncodified constitution is a constitution that may easily be amended by government and are not fixed. The UK has this system in place. An advantage of this is that it is flexible and helps the government keep up-to-date and put in place rights that will help them go through with their plans. According to research I have conducted, I have gathered that the people don’t seem to have a problem with this and it is deemed as the norm. However, I believe that an uncodified constitution gives the government a green light to exploit their power and treat people how they wish to do so, as long as it is justified by the ever-changing constitution. The fact that it is uncodified makes it difficult to access for the public and therefore they are unaware of their rights, which may cause the authorities to get away with injustice. Some may argue that it is ‘modern’, however, as it is not emphasised as much as the US constitution, people are unaware and I believe it allows civil...
Words: 471 - Pages: 2
...In the United Kingdom, we have a constitution that is uncodified and therefore not entrenched within our politics. Essentially, this makes it far easier to amend than a codified one and thus some groups have begun calling for such a constitution to be introduced. These groups cite the constitution in the USA, which forms the foundation of all political decisions; if a proposed law is found to go against the constitution, it is rejected. Supporters of a codified constitution for the UK say that this will give citizens inalienable rights which cannot easily be manipulated or even overturned by the government. A constitution is based around a general consensus of what people should be able to do or not do. Constitutional agreement forms the foundations of the concept of a rule of law. In the USA, their written constitution means that the relationship between citizens and the law is clearly defined. If a constitutional law is violated, there can be no debate over it. This means that the law has more authority in the land. However, in the UK, there is not one legal standard of our constitution and thus whether or not it was violated can be questioned. This can potentially lead to a moving of the goalposts – if the constitution is not entrenched, it is easy to change. Therefore it is impossible to hold everyone to the same standard even though the rule of law states that everyone is bound by it, because the government can essentially do what it likes in terms of manipulating or...
Words: 1775 - Pages: 8
...recent years there has been much debate within Parliament over the possible codification of the British Constitution and it is always a topic that people often find very hard to agree on. Though some parts of what may be a codified constitution have been introduced, such as The Human Rights Act which established a codified set of rules and the introduction of devolution, Britain is currently uncodified and so this brings up the arguments of whether update the system or not The initial argument for the change is it was remove the transparency of rules and laws, the key constitutional are collected into a single document all clearly stated with great difficulty of alteration. This portrays exactly what the beliefs of Parliament are and restricts law breaking. Not only does this deter people from committing offences but also makes it simple to enforce as every charge wish be on the same wavelength. An argument to contradict this however would be that's not every crime committed is the same so the variation in the punishment given would also have to vary and with the defining of the law there is actually potential for it to become less democratic. Along with this as times are forever changing and technology is being updated, the demand for laws to be amended is crucial as without it people could technically exploit the system ‘legally’. Another bonus of a codified Constitution is the fact that it is authoritative meaning it is a higher-level and so it lines all political institutions...
Words: 1062 - Pages: 5
...A constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established models according to which a state or is acknowledged to be governed. The UK’s constitution is part-written and uncodified. There is evidence the UK’s constitution is strong and successful, however there is evidence to also suggest that the UK needs constitutional reform. One huge advantage of the UK constitution is its ability to be flexible and change according to modern opinions or issues. An uncodified or unfixed constitution like the UK’s allows it to me able to keep updated with new social and political situations. It easier to create an Act of Parliament according to a new situation, than to amend a codified constitution. For example, in reaction to this idea of ‘new politics’ and the public’s desire to be able to influence the government between elections, lead to the introduction of referendums in 1997. The UKs democracy has withstood the tale of time and is seen as a huge strength of the UK’s constitution. The UK’s constitution is an example of the UK’s custom and tradition linking generations and has been tested in history to prove that it works. The constitution has adapted and developed over time: it is a ‘living’ constitution due to the idea that it is able to grow. In despite of parliamentary sovereignty, there are a number of ways in which the democratic character of the UK is maintained and the power of the government scrutinized and reduced where necessary. For instance, the House of Lords and...
Words: 754 - Pages: 4
...of a codified constitution now outweigh its disadvantages’. Discuss There are various advantages to having a codified constitution, especially in the modern climate of security fears that could have on the citizens’ civil liberties. However there are also several advantages to an uncodified constitution, for example its flexibility. When considering codification of the constitution, the following must be considered. A codified constitution would protect the rights of the citizen against the state. At the moment there is the Human Rights Act of 1998 which, in theory, does this already. But as Parliament is sovereign, in can essentially find a way around, or even repeal, this act thus making it unfit for purpose. In 2004 nine men, accused of terrorism, were held without charge (a violation of The Human Rights Act), the men took this case to the House of Lords where it was deemed to be unlawful. This was quickly followed by the introduction of the Anti Terror Act in 2005, which then made it legal for suspected (without significant evidence) terrorists to be held for up to 28 days. This act, for all intents and purposes, superseded the Human Rights Act. So what this says is that an uncodified constitution, where Parliament is sovereign, is open to abuse by the Government therefore making the act useless as it does not do what it was designed for and is therefore not fit for purpose. Whereas if there was a Human Rights Act entrenched, as part of a codified constitution where...
Words: 816 - Pages: 4
...Constitution What is a constitution? • Set of rules seeking to establishing the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government • To regulate the relationships between and among the institutions • Define the relationship between the state and the individual, define extent of civil liberty Types of Constitution • Codified and uncodified o Codified – enshrined in law and based on 1 single authoritative document outlining powers of institutions + government, as well as a statement of the rights of citizen’s ▪ Document is authoritative, highest law of the land. Binds all political institutions – leads to 2 tier legal system ▪ Provisions of it are entrenched, difficult to amend or abolish ▪ It is judiciable, all political bodies are subject to authority of the courts, in particular a supreme court. o Uncodified – increasingly rare, UK one of few ▪ Not authoritative, constitutional laws treated same as ordinary laws ▪ Not entrenched, constitution can be changed through the normal process for enacting statute law. ▪ Not judiciable, judges do not have legal standard to declare that actions of other bodies are constitutional/not constitutional. o However: ▪ No constitution is entirely written, written documents do not encompass all aspects of constitutional practice ▪ No constitution...
Words: 2123 - Pages: 9
