The First Year Of The Magna

“The United States Constitution is the oldest written national constitution still in use” (Confederation and the Constitution, pg. 71). After more than 200 years, the Constitution is still changing to support the next generations needs. This “living document” has many different reasons that allow it to “fit in” with the new generations.

A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. (McCulloch V. Maryland)

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

One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s

The history of mankind reflects that without the clear rights of people being written down to reference back to, destruction would incur (An Old Whig V, 1787). An Old Whig V additionally added, for example, if the nation were to come across future leaders who allow the replacement of officers just so they could side with them there is not a statement refusing the government otherwise (An Old Whig V, 1787). Without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to clarify the boundaries of which government must not cross then oppression would be the road we are calling unto our future (An Old Whig, 1787).It is essential for future generations to express their “liberty of conscience, freedom of speech and writing and publishing their thoughts on public matters, a trial by jury, holding themselves, their houses and papers free from seizures and search upon general suspicion or general warrants” through the security of ratifying the Bill of Rights (An Old Whig V,

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

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

An advantage of the UK constitution is that it takes into account of changing views. For example, in 1997 the changing of the hereditary peer system and also further reforms to change the structure of parliament. It is good that the British constitution will always takes into account these changes. However, there are disadvantages to an un-written constitution.

Impressment, the act of pressuring men into the administration of a naval force by compel, had been a piece of English oceanic culture since before the Magna Charta and went on for over six centuries for the basic reason that it was less expensive than paying a wage that would have pulled in men to the work in any case. Impressment turned into a noteworthy issue for the United States in the Early Republic, the period taking after the American Revolution. Extraordinary Britain's support in the Napoleonic Wars drove British press packs, gatherings of men contracted and drove by a controlling officer of the Royal Navy, to seize men found in seaports and to drive them to join maritime teams. Rules intended to control the press posses were normally

The Magna Carta is among those historical texts that are frequently cited, rarely read, and even more rarely understood. I came across it for the first time at Law school, where it was taught as “a historic text of immeasurable constitutional importance”. I conscientiously wrote this down – we didn’t have laptops in those days - and then quickly forgot it. I forgot it because I never understood the real significance of the document until recently.

A written constitution is precisely a charter that has been codified, in that the rules and regulations that citizens / individuals must abide by are stated in a single document format. Although elements of the UK constitution are written e.g. the statute law, sections of

These seem to assert controls on the constitution, but conventions cannot actually be enforced. Jennings defines conventions as ‘provide the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law’. The convention of collective responsibility is often broken, recently Hazel Blears attacked Gordon Browns government as being ‘lamentable’ as she believed Labour where misreading the mood of the British people. However as shown by the case of Attorney General V Cape Town ltd ‘Even if conventions exist they are unenforceable at law’. All that can be done is give rise to ‘legitimate criticism’, for example the minister may be asked to step down or could lose their place at the next cabinet reshuffle. Showing not all sources of the UK constitution, such as convention, lay down controls on the constitution.

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 United States Constitution states that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law”, an idea previously used in a 13th century document entitled the Magna Carta (US Const. Amend. V). The Magna Carta was the first written charter in Europe that enacted several law codes that dealt with topics such as inheritance and civil rights (history.com, 2017). The codes enacted with the original 1215 charter, which was revised into the permanent 1225 charter, gave social, political, and judicial rights to the elite, middle, and lower classes of the English people, including the serfdom, who had been ignored through (history.com, 2017). Containing 63 clauses, the Magna Carta is permeated with judicial equality, religious dominion, and an underlying plea for peace.

Most countries have a written constitution, which is a single document that delivers straightforward principles that practise public power and how they exercise that public power. Furthermore, it offers techniques and procedures of how the constitutional rules are enforced and how they can be changed. For New Zealand, we follow the United Kingdom and there Westminster system, as our constitution in “unwritten”. New Zealand’s constitution has always gained controversy, but the fact of the matter is we do have a constitution even if it’s not documented or compiled into one document as a whole. It is a very important aspect of New Zealand’s history and it is what shapes today’s society. This essay seeks to examination what a constitution in general terms is, what New Zealand’s constitution consists of, how the monarch or head of state links directly to New Zealand’s constitution and connections with the government, what republicans believe in and what a republican society looks like from countries that live in it, explanations of a democracy, and lastly the effects of what would happen regarding the constitution, government, and society if there was a decision made to abolish the monarch in New Zealand.