Explain Two Ways In Which The British Constitution Regulates The Conduct Of Government

One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s

James Madison quotes, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands whether of one, a few or many...may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” James Madison is saying absolute power corrupts absolutely. Accordingly, to obtain liberty the “three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” Our bicameral Legislature makes laws, Congress consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. “The executive power shall be vested in a President”, the President carries out the laws while in office during the term of four years. Consequently, the Judicial power evaluates laws and is “invested in one Supreme Court”. The separation of powers guards the community against tyranny because each branch holds each other

The Human Rights Act 1998 (also known as the Act or the HRA) came into force in the United Kingdom in October 2000. It is composed of a series of sections that have the effect of codifying the protections in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. All public bodies (such as courts, police, local governments, hospitals, publicly funded schools, and others) and other bodies carrying out public functions have to comply with the Convention rights. The Human Rights Act protects individuals from torture (mental, physical or both), inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment and deportation or extradition (being sent to another country to face criminal charges) if there is a real risk that they will face

To consider each principles power and their own basis within the British constitution, the rule of law needs to be defined too, but this is somewhat harder to do as it has no set definition. Different theories have attempted to define it though, and most agree with the Diceyan definition.It states that the rule of law contains three core elements - one, the law is absolutely supreme, two, everyone is equal before the law, and three, the Constitution may be found in the ordinary laws of the state.

Some may say that this is what separation of powers was put in place to do. However, this is showing something worse. Separation of powers was supposed to divide the power evenly among the three branches to create a balanced government. The Judicial branch lacks the numbers and the force that the other branches hold. Again, one point of view may say that the Judicial branch still has powers just like the other branches.

The judicial branch is being separated by being invested in one Supreme court. This guard protects against tyranny by separating the three powers, you keep one person, or one group, from doing whatever they want. Separation of powers is important because if the branches were not separated it could lead to

”Liberty required that the three great department of power should be separate and distinct.” The Legislative, Executive,and Judiciary are the three powers of department. By separating the powers provides a safeguard by ensuring all the government powers do not fall into the hands of a group or a single person. Each power has their own rules, running style, and different types of power to rule. Therefore Separating the Powers provides a stable society and country.

The Separation of powers on its own could not prevent tyranny. Although, the branches of power we distinct and unique, they “[Were not to be] so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” The

The reform of the Human Rights Act can illustrate that the constitutional reform did not go far enough. In 1998, the Blair government announced that the citizens ' rights would be safeguarded and strengthened through incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. However, this created a problem as the UK now has two sets of rights – those built up under Common Law and those in the Human Rights Act. These two sets of rights may conflict and, in addition, cases can be taken using these rights to both the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (which is the supreme court for the European Convention on Human Rights). The UK judiciary is divided on how to resolve this issue.

‘The absence of a written constitution ... enables constitutional change to be brought about within the United Kingdom with the minimum of constitutional formality.’

The British constitution is flexible in nature, which has allowed for the development of this country over centuries without the need for a fully codified constitution. I

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 provides that primary and subordinate legislation “must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights”. This provides judges the power to interpret and amend legislation so far as it is possible so that it is in accordance with Convention rights. There is no need for ambiguity in wording of the act to use section 3 and it does not affect the validity of the Act notwithstanding the Act being incompatible with Convention rights. There are limits on judges’ ability to use section 3 which restrict cases in which it can be used. First, section 3 cannot go against the grain of the fundamental purpose of the legislation in question. Second, judges can only go “so far as possible” when interpreting legislation. The means that judges are restrained by the plain words of the provision and cannot stray from it’s meaning so far as to completely amend it.

Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the

The Human Rights Act (1998) consists of sixteen fundamental rights that everybody is entitled to from birth or since the act was put into place. These sixteen rights are set out as ‘Articles’ and along with these Articles there are also ‘Protocols’ to extend and adapt new rights into the Human Rights Act. There are three main effects of the HRA: Firstly, it has subsumed the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British national law; if in any given situation there is a breach of rights, this allows people to take their cases to British courts instead of seeking justice from the European Court of

The principal aim of the Human Rights Act 1998 was to give statutory and formal protection in UK law to a set of clearly distinguishable rights. It was also to allow people to claim their rights before their own courts without having to take long drawn out and costly cases to the European