What Are The Advantages Of The UK Having A Constitutional Monarchy?

Throughout the rigmarole of political history of the United States of America, the growth of the “fourth branch of government”, the Bureaucracy, has been a prominent, controversial topic. Peter Woll, in his article “Constitutional Democracy and Bureaucratic Power”, and James Q. Wilson, in his article “The Rise of the Bureaucratic State”, discuss this developing administrative branch. The Constitution has no written mention of an “administrative branch”, and today’s Bureaucracy is often tedious, corrupt, and even undemocratic. But such a branch’s development and expansion is necessary in order to keep par with an evolving and changing society.

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.

Have you ever wondered what the US would be like if our government was a tyranny? Well, thanks to our founding fathers for creating a strong constitution, we don’t have to worry about that. The constitution was written in 1787 in Philadelphia. The problem was that the existing government that was under the Articles Of Confederation wasn’t very successful. Therefore, the fifty-five delegates representing twelve out of the thirteen states came together to tweak our constitution to create a strong government without allowing one person, or group of people to have too much power. The framers used the Constitution to protect against Tyranny in three ways federalism, separation of powers, and

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

During the second half of the 17th century, there were many similarities and differences between the monarchy in England and France. These similarities and differences were seen in the theory and practice of the monarchies. In England, there was a Constitutional monarchy, while in France, there was an Absolutist monarchy. In the second half of the 17th century, absolute monarchs such as Louis XIV ruled in France, and William and Mary shared their power with Parliament in England. These two monarchies had differences theories and government, but they shared a similarity through the practice of mercantilism.

Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they

Thomas Paine is not an advocate of monarchy. In fact, he called monarchy institutionalized robbing. In his work Rights of Man, the political philosopher contrasts old government with new government, defining the former as hereditary and the latter as a representative system. Specifically, Paine had two major objections to monarchy; first, he argued that a hereditary government is a imposition on humans, and secondly, “it is inadequate to the purpose for which government is necessary” (Paine 113). A hereditary government unfairly binds future generations, this would make the monarchy illegitimate because a government must have continuous consent in order to be legitimate. If a monarch inherits a kingdom he too inherits its people, Paine says to inherit people is to treat them as farm animals. To sum up this point, Paine exclaims that a hereditary monarchy reduces humans to beasts.

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

The Constitution was created so one person or group wasn’t able to get too much power. At first, the Articles of Confederation was made. The Articles of Confederation was not working because the central government didn’t have enough power to protect the nation. The Constitution was made in order to hold the states together and the people together, and make sure the government doesn’t gain too much power. The Constitution guards against tyranny. Tyranny is “The accumulation of all powers…in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” (Federalism Paper #47). The Constitution guards against tyranny by separation of powers, creating federalism, and having checks and balances.

In the summer of 1787, 55 delegates responded to the call of a Constitutional Convention. These white, mostly wealthy, males, represented eleven states out of the thirteen. They met up in Philadelphia to fix the weak national government. The challenge here was to create a strong central government without creating a tyranny- a government with an absolute ruler or a king. The writers of the Constitution were determined to not let an individual get such control of the new American government.

In 1776 the United States declared Independence from England because King George III was a tyrant who made unfair rules and imposed large taxes. Tyranny as defined by James Madison in federalist paper #47 is, “The accumulation of all powers… in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many….” After the United States separated from England, they were still under the Articles of Confederation or A.O.C; the first attempt at government. The A.O.C was the weakest government there was in that there was no union of states, it did not have power to form an army, or any power over the states. Because of that, 55 delegates from 12 of the 13 states came to Philadelphia in 1787 to form a stronger government.

A monarch is in control. You are being what to do by someone you do not even want ruling your country. What could you do? This is how your world works, it’s always worked like this, so why change it? Simply change it because you are unhappy with the way the world is, you deserve to enjoy the country you live in. That there, change the society, is exactly what the Enlightenment thinkers wanted to do. The Enlightenment thinkers are a group of people who found countless flaws in the way people decided to run the countries. Therefore, of all the Enlightenment thinkers, I believe John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau impacted the world the most due to them having a full grasp on the ideologies of humanity.

In the upcoming United States Presidential Election it is possible to see a woman become elected as President. This would be a first for the United States and also for most of the world. Throughout the world different types of governments have survived, faulted, or have been altered. Many of these governments came from early European countries. Two of the most popular types of governments to come from Europe are Constitutional Monarchy and Absolutism. Traces of Constitutional Monarchy and Absolutism are still seen today in different parts of the world. Constitutional Monarchy and Absolutism have its roots set in England and France respectively. Much of original regulations that have been put in place by these governments have

Professor Larry Sabato is the founder of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia presents 23 proposals to revitalize our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country. His book provides insight for a hard fought debate. Whether you like his suggestions or not or you agree with him or not, you have to respect anyone that can outwardly state that the United States Constitution as it has been handed down is “outdated.” This quest for reform I’m sure would anger many political conservatives who believe that the Constitution that we know today, is not in need of any reform, and is just the true document that is has always been and should remain.

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