Essay about The Arguments For and Against a Codified Constitution

Moreover, the traditional view is that a codified constitution would be incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty, and it would set limits on the powers of the legislature and executive, since the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty gives Westminster supreme authority. A codified constitution could not be entrenched or have the status of fundamental law.

A constitution is a set of rules that defines the manner a country is run. The British constitution is said to be an unwritten constitution, more accurately it is uncodified as much more of the British constitution is written down, however, they are not all written down in a single document like a codified constitution would require as how the US is, however draws from several different sources such as; statutes laws, common law, conventions, EU laws, authoritative documents etc. Statute law, is a written law passed down by parliament for example the human rights act of 1998 which brought the European convention on human rights into British law, conventions is another

A constitution is a set of rules that create a framework in which those who govern must work within. It’s designed to ensure that both the govern and the governed abide by the law. Today, most democratic countries such as America, Canada and Australia have a written constitution which is a single codified document that explains the powers of State and its institutions; entrenching the fundamental rights and values of its country’s citizens. It’s seen to act as a symbolic force on society and ensures that the rules are made clear and easily accessible for all. The UK, along with New Zealand and Israel, has an unwritten (or uncodified) constitution which is made up of various sources such

The Constitution is the foundation of the United States and its government, outlining and limiting the powers that the president, Supreme Court, and the legislative branch have. When created, the founding fathers of the United States knew that humans were imperfect. Humans being imperfect and put in positions of great power could end in chaos so this document ensured that the powers held by the people in government would be limited to an extent. And because we still, today, wish to limit the power of the government so that individual rights are not violated, the Constitution remains constant in more ways than one. We need a government strong enough to have power to rule but not so strong that they have the final say.

Discuss whether the idiosyncratic nature of the UK Constitution, from a wider European perspective, is a sufficiently powerful reason to pursue a codified Constitution for the United Kingdom.

However if a codified constitution will introduce judicial tyranny then it defeats the object of reducing concentrated power. In the UK currently the people have the ability the put pressure on the government to make changes to the constitution for example the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949 because of a growing belief that an unelected second chamber should no longer have the right to block the policies of an elected government. This was recently changed again so that after the hereditary line to the House of Lords stop after those currently there die. However in a codified constitution judges would be the people policing the constitution, meaning that pressure from the people wouldn’t mean anything because the judiciary are not accountable to the people.

Preamble: An introduction to the American Constitution that sets the tone and foundation for achieving the goals of the United States

A Constitution is a set of rules that help govern the country, there are many different types of constitution but the two most commonly known are uncodified and codified. The British constitution has grown over time,

There is a dispute between people who are against the codified constitution and those who are arguing for it during the last two centuries. People who believe that a codified constitution is more suitable for democratic countries have strong points. For example, Heywood (2013) notifies that a codified constitution entrenches major constitutional principles and protects individual liberty. On the other hand, a codified constitution can be considered more rigid and can make it much difficult for the government and society to deem and balance new reality if the circumstances change. This essay is not going to discuss the strength and drawbacks of a codified constitution, but it is going to analyze how both codified and uncodified constitution deal with developed conflicts and unexpected circumstances. Moreover, this essay will examine examples from history and constitutions of such countries as China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Israel. My conclusion will be that it does not matter if the state has a codified or uncodified constitution, because the most important fact is that any constitution should be flexible enough to reflect political realities and respond on changed political circumstances.

A codified constitution can restrict government power, written down what the exert power the government has and the provision of declaring war. According to Dicy, constitutional Conventions “are designed to control the use of discretionary power by the Crown .” Codified constitution will gain a legal state in restricting royal prerogative

A constitution is generally there for one purpose, it ‘sets out the framework and principal functions of the organs of government’ and by setting out these functions the UK has been growing and adapting. We in other words have an evolutionary constitution. If it ever came to a time where a written constitution was enacted, it would indeed disrupt the infrastructure of the UK as they are inflexible. Clear inflexibility is shown by

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unlike many other Nations with a codified constitution, the UK has no single constitutional document- this means, she has no single constitutional document but whose main sources are, Acts of Parliament, Judicial decisions and Constitutional conventions. This essay looks at the features of the UK’s constitution, what a written constitution entails and whether or not it would be desirable for UK to embrace codification being the only European state with an unwritten constitution.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of a codified constitution is that a codified constitution would protect rights. Individual liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution because it would define the relationship between the state and the citizens. As a result of this rights would be more clearly defined and they would be easier to enforce than with the current uncodified constitution that exists in the UK. An uncodified constitution can also lead to elective dictatorship which further restricts rights. One way these rights could be defined is through a bill or rights in the codified constitution. A bill of rights is a document that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual, and so defines the legal extent of civil liberty. In Britain there is no bill of rights on terrorism legislation which exposes the weak protection of rights that an uncodified constitution offers.

A constitution is set of rules which seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of various institutions of government, it regulate the relationship between and among the institutions and define the relationship between the state and the individual. There are many different types of constitutions. Constitutions can be written or unwritten, unitary or federal and seen as rigid and flexible the most common way of comparing constitutions however is written and unwritten. For example the USA is an example of a written constitution while the UK is an example of an unwritten constitution.