The Advantages of a Codified Constitution Now Outweigh the Disadvantages

A final strength of the UK constitution is fact that it gives power to the Executive. The UK constitution gives power to the executive as it gives them the responsibility to implement laws and

The United States Constitution was signed in 1787, in hopes of creating a new legal system that would ensure basic human rights for all citizens. Often, the constitution evokes political discussion on whether or not there should be a constitutional convention. The article named “Re – examining the Constitution by Kenneth Jost (2012), provides the reader with an interesting analysis of the pros and cons of a constitutional convention (“Con – Con”). Citizens who oppose the Con – Con argue that changing the Constitution wouldn’t transition well because of the current political climate, and explain that it has worked fine over the years. On the other hand, citizens who are in favor of the Con – Con, state that the constitution is outdated, and suggest that reviewing it may be beneficial to better suit the citizen’s needs. A close comparison of both arguments reveals that people who support the constitutional convention have stronger reasons regarding the document and are more rational about the issues associated with it.

The first way that the Constitution helped with the weaknesses of the United States were the different ways it made passing laws more fair. When amending a document the Articles of Confederation needed 13 out of 13 people to approve of the document. The Constitution provided a more reasonable way by having ⅔ of both houses and ¾ of the state legislature. This is a better method because not 100% of people are going to agree on everything. The same type of thing worked when passing laws. 9/13 people needed to approve in the Articles of Confederation while it’s now 50% +1 of both houses plus the signature of the President. This allows for things to be more fair and it makes sure everyone in power somewhat agrees on what is going on and not just a couple of people are deciding on what the citizens new laws will be.

In this world there are many different constitutions. While many of them are long, they can be short. Many constitutions were written a long time ago, while some were just written recently or just a few years ago. The ones that were made a long time ago have even been passed down and changed for people to understand now. Even though all constitution have similarities, they all have differences between each other as well.

parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy, meaning that parliament has a supremacy over the monarchy but the Queen still has certain powers (Jones et al., 2004). Since the 1970’s the traditional constitution has been challenged and had two major changes, which I will talk about later. The US constitution, unlike the UK constitution, is codified. It has a clear written primary source and one could say that its secondary source is the interpretation by the Supreme Court, which can change the meaning of specific phrases written in the primary source (Singh, 2003). A central principle to the constitution is that government should be limited and the powers split up.

In conclusion, the written constitution was created in the United States to help provide a healthy environment. Each government is limited on what they are entitled to do and citizens understand their rights regardless of the situation that they are in. In addition, United Kingdom has unique ways to establish laws because lawmakers are able to create new policies without going through the process as the United

The Constitution should change with society. Like all societies, ours changes with time. Like it or not, things will be different in the future. Although we agree with things we are doing now, we may not in the future. Our constitution is ment to be part of a lasting government in the land of the free. If the USA really wishes to be held up to that title, its people must be able to agree, and if needed, change the Constitution.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of an Unwritten Constitution in the UK The UK has an unwritten constitution unlike the U.S.A. Instead Britain's laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention and more recently E.U law. It is misleading to call the British constitution unwritten; a more precise form of classification would be un-codified. This means that the British constitution has no single document, which states principles and rules of a state. However, The British constitution clearly sets out how political power is allocated and where it is legally located. The British constitution is still visible and it defines composition and powers of the main offices and

Right now a debate is accruing about weather or not we should ratify the constitution. This is an important moment in our country history because if we ratify the constitution it could make our country better or make it worse.We are at a crossroads in the history of our country. The Articles of Confederation are not working. They give the states too much power and are too weak. We can not pay our debts as a nation.The proposed Constitution would give us a strong government so that we can rise money through taxes. It could create a strong system of representatives. For these reasons I think we should ratify the Constitution.

In the current situation of making a decision whether to ratify or not ratify the Constitution, the Constitution should not be ratified. Due to serious problems and issues that could arise, and the problems and issues experienced in the past under the British parliament, the Constitution should not be passed and the Articles of Confederation should be kept to keep a strong state government. Issues like being under complete under control, favoring the wealthy, and having no rights should be corrected.

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.

Consider the sources of the UK constitution and the methods by which it may be changed. Do you agree with Barnett’s views?

On the other hand a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to its citizens. Currently in the UK the constitution is not easy to find which makes it difficult for the UKs citizens to learn the nature of the political system but also all the rights that as a citizen of the UK you should enjoy. For example in the USA the bill of rights is a part of their constitution and every citizen can gain access to these rights. In the USA the whole constitution is on one document and all citizens have access to it. This may make it easier for the UK as a whole to understand the British

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

Without this, a government could remove rights too easily with an overall majority by simply introducing a Bill and relying on its parliamentary majority to pass it. For example, since the attack on the twin towers in the USA on 11 September 2001, the government has been able to persuade parliament to pass an anti-terrorist legislation which goes against certain rights despite the UK having a Human Rights Act (1998). As a result, for example, a number of asylum seeks have been detained without trial. Under a codified constitution they would be unable to introduce this legislation to restrict people’s rights and the only way to do this is to amend the constitution which would be difficult and a lengthy process. Parliamentary sovereignty is slowly diminishing in the UK and a codified constitution would not only decrease government sovereignty, but also increase sovereignty of the