...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 activism...
Words: 762 - Pages: 4
...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. On the other hand arguments against retaining an un-codified constitution are that; a codified constitution would clarify the nature for the political system to citizens, codified constitutions can better safeguard the citizen’s rights and lastly that introducing a codified system in the UK would bring the UK in line with most other...
Words: 924 - Pages: 4
...Should the UK have a codified constitution? A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of government. Constitutions can be uncodified, like the UK’s at the moment, or codified in the case of the USA’s for example. A codified constitution is authoritative, entrenched and judiciable, everything that an uncodified constitution isn’t. On the one hand there are many arguments supporting the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution. If a codified constitution were introduced, the key constitutional rules would be collected together in a single document, and they would be more clearly defined than in an ‘unwritten’ constitution where rules are spread across many different documents. A codified constitution would create less confusion about the meaning of constitutional rules and greater certainty that they can be enforced. A second argument supporting a codified constitution is limited government. A codified constitution would cut government down to size. A codified constitution would effectively end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. Elective dictatorship is a constitutional imbalance in which executive power is abused to allow governments to win elections. In the UK, it is reflected in the ability of a government to act in any way it pleases as long as it maintains control of the House of Commons. It would not be possible for government to interfere with the constitution...
Words: 716 - Pages: 3
...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...
Words: 1041 - Pages: 5
...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 including those that make ordinary law, such as the two chambers. The provisions of the constitution are also said to be entrenched meaning that they are difficult to amend or abolish. As a codified constitution...
Words: 1062 - Pages: 5
...sources and is favoured for its ability to evolve and mould to suit the pragmatic nature of British politics. In the US however a codified constitution is adopted which originates from a single written source, its clarity and rigidity prevents the formation of an elective dictatorship and is therefore preferred. The pragmatic capability of a flexible uncodified constitution allows government to act efficiently and decisively to implement changes in reaction to a major event in which its’ peoples’ lives are endangered. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 resulted in an alteration of the Human Rights Act by British government increasing the length of time a suspected terrorist could be detained without charge, which occurred with relative ease. The rigid nature of the US codified constitution hampered US government attempts to achieve similar constitutional changes due to the fact that it required two-thirds support by both Houses of Congress and three-quarters from each state legislature. Therefore Britain should not adopt a codified constitution as it would prevent the political system from responding adequately to new situations. The formation of an uncodified constitutions allows strong Governments’ to implement pledges made to the electorate made in its’ election manifesto without interference from other political institutions as long as such changes remain within the confinements of law, through legislative action. This situation is reversed due to a strong separation of powers,...
Words: 670 - Pages: 3
...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 and thus very controversial. Many...
Words: 2597 - Pages: 11
...“How can UK democracy be enhanced?” Democracy is a political system where decisions are made in the interests of the people by decision-makers who are elected, accountable and can be got rid of peacefully. There 2 types of democracy: direct and representative ones. In the UK there is a direct democracy which gives every citizen the right to participate, the opportunity to express their views, thoughts and where voters determine specific policy outcomes. There is a constant debate whether the UK is a truly democratic country or not and to what extent. It is believed that nowadays Britain has a massive issues: the electoral system is totally unfair, there are unelected political members and the lack of parties, Civil Rights are in danger, citizens no longer have a wish to participate in elections, the media is prejudged and, finally, the UK is not representative. This essay will evaluate how to make the Great Britain more democratized. The major point is that there is a low rate of political participation in the UK that might lead to an arbitrary and autocratic government. It is significant element because it makes the government more accountable. There are some ways which can prevent this undemocratic style. Firstly, the UK government can introduce the compulsory voting which is nowadays enhanced in Australia. This method would force citizens to affect the outcomes of elections and make them more politically aware of issues. The second way is to increase the use of referendums...
Words: 1432 - Pages: 6
...GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS AS LEVEL UNIT TWO GOVERNING THE UK “Never, never, never give up” Winston S Churchill 1874-1965 1 GOVERNING THE UK 50% of AS [25% of A2] UNIT TWO SAMPLE QUESTION Answer one question from Section A and one question from Section B in 80 minutes. Spend 40 minutes on Section A and 40 minutes on Section B SECTION A QUESTION ONE PRIME MINISTERIAL POWER “For too long the big political decisions in this country have been made in the wrong place. They are not made around the Cabinet table where they should be, but they are taken on the sofa in Tony Blair’s office. No notes are kept and no one takes the blame when things go wrong. That arrogant style of government must come to an end. I will restore the proper process of government. I want to be Prime Minister of this country not a President (Source: David Cameron, The Times, 5th October 2006) “The Cabinet is the committee at the centre of the British political system. Every Thursday during Parliament, Secretaries of State from all departments as well as other ministers meet in the Cabinet Room in Downing Street to discuss the big issues of the day. The Prime Minister chairs the meeting, selects its members and also recommends their appointment as ministers to the monarch. The present Cabinet has 23 members (21 MPs and two peers). The secretary of the Cabinet is responsible for preparing records of its discussions and decisions”. (Source: From a modern textbook) (a) What...
Words: 68254 - Pages: 274
...Government & Politics Unit 2 * Constitution * Codified Constitution ✓ * Advantages & Disadvantages * Features * Uncodified Constitution ✓ * Advantages & Disadvantages * Features * Is Parliament Sovereign? ✓ * Arguments For and Against * Strengths and Weaknesses of the UK’s constitution ✓ * Constitutional Reforms – Coalition and 1997-2010 ✓ * What are they? * Are they effective? * PM & Cabinet * Features & Functions of the PM ✓ * What must a politician be to becoming PM * What can a PM do? * Functions of Cabinet ✓ * Factors that affect promotion and resignation of a minister ✓ * Powers and Constraints of PM ✓ * Theories of Executive Power ✓ * PM V Cabinet ✓ * Parliament * Functions of Parliament ✓ * What are they? * How effective are they? * Powers of Parliament ✓ * What are they? * How effective are they? * Parliamentary Reform ✓ * What are they? * How effective are they? * Relationship between Parliament and Government ✓ * Factors that affect it * How the coalition affects it Constitution: 2 Types of Constitution * Codified & Uncodified Codified Constitution * Constitution where the rules are written down in a single document. Example could be the USA...
Words: 4289 - Pages: 18
...Has constitutional reform in the UK gone too far since 1997? Due to the uncodified nature of the UK constitution it is organic and the lack of higher law enables constitutional reforms to occur far quicker and with greater ease than seen in other countries, such as the USA. A constitutional reform is a political change in the constitution. There are varying bodies of opinion on the extent of constitutional reforms that are currently required within the UK. Constitutional changes have been mainly seen since 1997, under Blair and Brown, such as the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in 1999, a constitutional reform some argue to be unnecessary while others argue should be extended and developed. A key issue that has divided constitutional opinions since 1997 is the idea of the unelected House of Lords, which some say undermine the legitimacy of democracy within the UK. The Salisbury convention already exists and ensures that the House of Lords does not obstruct proposals, which are previously contained in the elected government’s most recent manifesto, which is argues as an example of the removal of undemocratic sovereignty held previously by the Lords. However the fact that it is unwritten has been opposed to as the Lords is not fully controlled by the Government. To counteract the opposition other reforms have been introduce to reduce the powers of the House of Lords, such as the 1999 reform reducing hereditary peers to 92 from 600, and also the loss of...
Words: 1560 - Pages: 7
...the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and the devolution of powers. The electoral system used in the UK has also been subject to discussion over reform however all constitutional reform can be said to have not gone far enough. The House of Lords Act of 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. This meant that the House of Lords could be seen as more legitimate as both unelected and not appointed peers would be seen as undemocratic and illegitimate. The removal of hereditary peers means that the House of Lords are more confident in their role in scrutinising and blocking legislation as they feel more legitimate. An example of the House of Lords exerting this role is the blocking of NHS reform which led to the government rethinking and amending plans, as well as the Hunting Act 2004. However reform of the House of Lords could be said to have not gone far enough, 92 hereditary peers still remain in the House of Lords, and the Liberal Democrats call for a wholly elected upper chamber, to make Parliament fully accountable. The House of Lords are also limited in the fact that they can only delay legislation for up to a year and therefore not able to check executive power as much as they should be able to. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another example of constitutional reform. The Human Rights Act adopted the European Convention of Human Rights and set it as UK statute law. This allows for citizens to be clearer on the rights and freedoms they possess. This was...
Words: 991 - Pages: 4
...Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a In 1972 the UK joined the treaty of accession, this was a statute law passed by parliament. It stated that the UK was now a part of the EU and therefore must abide by the laws and regulations that would be imposed; over 2,900 regulations and 410 directives were added, 43 volumes of the EU legislation. Due to having joined over 30 years after the initial EU was created, the UK has been made to accept laws that had been made without its input. Whereas now, having joined the EU, we are involved in in their creation - this is a key argument for why we should remain a member. Joining the EU has been agued as being a pinnacle point at which the UK lost its sovereignty, as this was the first time in the history of parliament where absolute power was no longer held. Research done by the TPA (Taxpayers Alliance) shows there are currently 16,980 EU acts in force between 1998 and 2007. In 2007, 3,010 EU laws became UK law, while only 993 EU regulations were repealed - a gain of 2,017 laws. An example of where EU laws have directly impeded on UK law is the 1991 Factortame case. After a disagreement...
Words: 898 - Pages: 4
