How Did The British Constitution Change

Constitutional reform is a process whereby the fundamental nature of the system of government is changed or where a change is proposed. In the UK this may also involve the process of codification. Since 1997 there has been many key reforms that have made UK more democratic by a large amount and sometimes not so much if at all.

The seventeenth century saw the evolution of two new types of government mainly because of the instability that was caused by religious wars. One type of government was a constitutional monarchy in which rulers were confined to the laws of the state, giving the people some liberties, best exemplified by William and Mary during the Stuart monarchial rule. Constitutional monarchy was successful in mainly in England because of the Magna Carta, which kept the king’s power in check. The other type was absolute monarchy, in which the king has power over everything, shown by the French under Louis XIV. Although these two

There are various strengths of the UK constitution; these include the fact that the constitution is flexible, it protects the rights of citizens and finally it gives power to the executive. The UK and its constitution, in my opinion, is a very strong unit, this being shown through the points listed above and consequently explained below.

The United Kingdom can easily change their laws than most countries, which can be beneficial to new situations. Furthermore, the British Constitution does not have a set stone and it illustrate to their residents on how as well as when political power is allocated, which allows politicians and attorneys to relied on the constitutional authorities to grasp a better understanding.

Fundamentally the UK government does not have elective dictatorship. The government is still elected even though they have a large majority of seats in the House of Commons. However if a government does have a very large majority they are able to make big changes very quickly but all times they are

The passing of the English Bill of Rights ushered in a new age for England, giving the power of the Monarchy to the Parliament, and banning the Monarch from adjourning Parliament or going against the opinion of its majority. The Bill lists that many tyrannical actions that had previously been made by many kings, such as levying money and suspending/revoking laws were illegal without the consent of Parliament (Document 3), essentially giving Parliament control of the direction of English law. The English Bill of Rights was ratified by William in 1689, which directly stated multiple times that the ruler’s power was to be checked by Parliament, thus inhibiting them from exercising full power over the people, preventing tyranny. He states in Document 2 that he and his wife Mary will “concur in everything that may procure the peace and happiness of [the] nation, which a free and lawful Parliament shall determine… [and support] the securing of the whole nation the free enjoyment of all their laws, rights, and liberties,

After the end of the civil war, officers of the New Model Army, formed by Cromwell, decided to put Charles on trial. Parliament voted to negotiate with the King in order to come to a peace agreement, but that was met with a fierce rebuke from Cromwell and his army. In order to kill any hope for the King and to prevent any kind of compromise between the King and Parliament, one hundred and eighty members of Parliament were excluded, and forty five were imprisoned for showing resistance. This act of purging was described simply as a coup d'état. (23 Laughland) If the king is truly guilty and hated by his people, Cromwell wouldn’t have needed to perform this despicable action of arresting and barring Parliament members from their seats. At this point, the authority of Parliament that was supported by the Roundheads, over the King’s, has lost all its legality. Parliament became a military tool in the hand of Cromwell and his army. In addition to this, Cromwell’s son-in-law, Henry Ireton, was the one who submitted a request to prosecute the King, which was naturally accepted by the one third of the Parliament left. A court with the name of ‘High Court of Justice’ was formed to be responsible for the King’s trial. (103-104 TURCHETTI)

The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It was recognized that each future generation would be facing new challenges that would have never occurred to the older ones, so it had the flexibility available by both interpretation and revisement to allow the newer generation to use the document as it was intended. As society and government grows, additions must be made to the Constitution to keep with the times. The Constitution is also governed by the thoughts of society at that time, seen in the implementation of the 18th amendment because of the urgings of religious and Women’s Suffrage movements. As it is also seen when the government grows weary of one president in office too long, seen in the creation of the 22nd amendment.

In England, from about 1400 to 1700 there was a constant struggle between Parliament and the ruling monarch. During that time, there were six documents that tried to weaken or challenge the power of the monarch. One of these documents was the Petition of Right. The Petition of Right, although it did not last, challenged Charles I by stating that he could not levy taxes without Parliament’s approval, not declare martial law, not to quarter soldiers in private homes while during peacetime, and could not imprison someone without a valid charge. Another document is the Grand Remonstrance. The Grand Remonstrance was a list of grievances against Charles I. This lead to Parliament asking for control of the army. Although it was brutally denied, it

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

The paper confronts assumptions about the English and UK constitutional framework leading up to the Magna Carta and other documents that both lead up to, and follow it. Our constitution has roots in English common law and written law. Common law was in place and used before written laws were created. The Magna Carta was emplaced to end common law in England. The Manga Carta was the first written laws that shifted the English political system to something

In this essay, I would like to analyse why the reform of the British constitution is seen as unfinished business. Constitutional reform is when the system of government and how government institutions interact is changed. This has also meant the codification of some components of the constitution in the UK. Between 1997 and 2007, there were a considerable number of constitutional reforms introduced by the Blair governments. These reforms included devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, decentralisation, reform of the House of Lords and Commons, creations of new legislation granting greater freedom and rights within the UK, and so on. However, some of them are yet to be accomplished or in progress related to the electoral and

The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten

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. There are arguments for the UK to both retain an uncodified constitution and to change this to a codified constitution like the USA. Some of the arguments for retaining the uncodified system are that; codification produces

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