New Zealand 's Legal Architecture And Constitutional Arrangements Essay

     The two constitutions both have a preamble, however the Australian constitution is many more times

Democracy in the United Kingdom has changed a lot over the years however the definition has never changed. The right for people to choose and decide how a country is run. This essay will help decide whether the United Kingdom still follows that definition of being a true democracy and analysing how this has affected the people of the UK.

are two countries that are very similar but not quite the same. The U.S. is a democracy, but New Zealand is a Parliament. These are two very similar types of government but a Parliament takes some aspects from a monarchy and combine them with some from a democracy. New Zealand does not have a president, they have a prime minister. In the U.S. citizens vote for a president. But in New Zealand they vote for the members of the Parliament, and the legislative branch of the Parliament assigns a prime minister. New Zealand also does not have states. They did used to have provinces, but they scraped in the provincial system in the late

4. Weakening democracies in New Zealand is coming from voters no longer finding voting to be important anymore. The biggest group

Britain, to begin with, has no written constitution due to the country’s own constitutional structure’s stability. It remains uncodified, yet it’s legal sources stem from Acts of parliament, European Union law, equity and common law,. Therefore the varying powers of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law will be considered against these sources.

The Canadian Constitution, BNA act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Health care act are the backbone of Canada’s political system. The constitution is based upon the structure and civil rights of every Canadian inhabitant. It is a written document which states the rules that can run the federal and provincial governments and determine the responsibilities and rights of the cannadian citizens. The constitution was created so if a person has to undergo legal problems they will be treated fairly and equally.

The Australian constitution was formed as a result of representatives from each colony attending meetings (conventions) in order to draw up a constitution for governing the nation. The purpose of the constitution is that it is responsible for ensuring correct procedures are used by government in the creation of legislation. This paper will

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

The purpose of New Zealand’s constitution is to provide for the creation and structuring of major government institutions, to state the power that these institutions have, and to then regulate these institutions to a certain extent (Keith, K. 2008). It is not a typical constitution as it is not a ‘written constitution’, unlike with many other countries around the world. In respect to this, it has evolved to

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

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its

The rule of law broadly requires; that all are equal before the law , that the government is subject to the law and must exercise its power according to the law, finally that ‘there exist fundamental individual liberties and minimum standards of justice, to which the law must conform’ . The rule of law is problematic to define but put simply it is not ‘the rule of men’ and is evident in societies with functioning judiciaries and a clear separation of powers such as New Zealand. It is one of several intrinsic attributes of our constitutional makeup and overall the Judiciary aid in ‘ensure[ing] that the rule of

‘Person B’ is correct in saying that New Zealand is neither a chaotic mess nor a dictatorship and that is because we must have a constitution. New Zealand is not a chaotic mess as that means that the country would be in complete disorder and total confusion, which fortunately it is not. A dictatorship is defined as ‘power to govern without consent of those being governed’, which is not the case in New Zealand. It is a democracy, which is an underlying principle of the constitution. It is defined as ‘a system of government in which all the people of a state are involved

New Zealand 's constitution is very unique and is the base of our legal system. The constitution is unwritten allowing a variety of elements that make up our constitution some are; constitution conventions and statutes. New Zealand 's constitution structure is separated into three branches; the legislature, judiciary and the executive . The executive is the decision making branch, it is believed that the executive is where the real power of parliamentary supremacy lies, as the decisions they make influence the process of legislation . Throughout this essay I will emphasise how statutes are more important and effective in contrast to constitution conventions.

The Treaty of Waitangi has always been Aotearoa, New Zealand’s founding document, however it’s status continues to change over time. Signed over 175 years ago, February 6th 1840, the document continues to cause much controversary and debate in its meaning and interpretation (Orange, 2011). It is the history that keeps repeating itself. During pre-colonisation of New Zealand, Britain entered partnership with Maori as protection from other colonisers and as help with legal trading according to British Maritime law. The treaty entered the scenario to concrete British Colonisation and secure this partnership. At this time, the treaty had begun a movement in Britain to acknowledge and regret the harmful effects of colonization they had seen in previous encounters. These good intentions were considered in the making of the treaty , but unfortunatley were addressed in a way that favoured the Crowns plans for New Zealand.