Interpreting The Purpose Of The Constitution In The UK

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.

“(L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” (Document B) For our government to be successful we much create three main levels of government where powers are distributed. This guards from tyranny because it makes sure that no branch has more power than one another because they check each other. Document B states that in the Constitution article 1 section 1, article 2 section 1 clause 1, and article 3 section are about the three separate branches in our government and what responsibilities that each one holds. With our government having three different branches each one has its own limited powers that make a democracy possible. This guards against tyranny because no branch overpowers each other, nobody gets too much power, and the powers are evenly distributed. Separation of powers is one of the main things framers used to protect against tyranny.

The Differences Betweek the UK and US Constitutions The constitution of a state, at its most basic, can be described as the fundamental principles from which it is governed, usually defining how power is split up within it and thereby constructing a framework within which it operates (www.oed.com). In this essay, I will first provide a brief summary of the UK and US constitutions and then attempt to outline the key differences and similarities between the two and discuss whether the differences really do pale in comparison with the fundamental similarities. Queen Elizabeth the 2nd once said, “The British constitution has always puzzled me” (Hennessy, 1996) and this certainly becomes

Under the British constitution, parliament is sovereign. This means, amongst other things, that Parliament has a monopoly on making and amending laws. The British constitution, and the three functions of government which operate it often falls short of creating a definitive separation. Separation of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of government should function independent of each other, in a utopian world there should aim to be a balance between the Crown and Parliament. In practice however, separation between the executive and legislature is near enough non-existent, an example being that government is made up almost entirely of MPs. Contrast this with the USA where no member of Obama’s government is equally a member of congress. However, the USA does have a codified constitution, a constitution written to delegate a clear separation of power. As we are well aware the UK doesn’t have such a constitution, the rules that

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

One of the most important principles incorporated in the U.S. Constitution is separation of powers. The U.S. Constitution divided the central government into three branches and created a system of checks and balances as a way to prevent the concentration of power. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In order to be sure that the main

Separation of power is the second reasoning for the guard again tyranny. This part controls the “three branches”, the judicial, executive, and legislative branch. All of these help separate the government and it keeps one person, or group from doing what they want. “Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct” James Madison quotes in the federalist paper #47.

The Judicial Branch has also exerted is power to check the other branches and keep the balance

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.

With the U.S. Constitution one of the strengths is how it divides federal powers between three main branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. Which is defined by the separation of powers doctrine, and provides a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch from overpowering the other. This is why separation of powers is important because if one person had unlimited power, then others would be suppressed. The separation of powers divides certain tasks among the three branches so that they can check

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.

Traditional Originalism led the court as the method of constitutional interpretation until the late nineteenth century. Judges were compelled to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the provisions. The Originalism view interprets the constitution line by line exactly as the founders would have found it. Later, during the early twentieth century, progressives in the legal community proclaimed that due to the changing social environment as time goes on in the nation, the political system needed to be reconfigured. They thought that the political system needed increased national government authority and a modern administrative state. They also thought that the increased national authority and modern administrative state wouldn’t work well with the traditional Originalism interpretation of the constitution. After long political battles in and out of the court, they won the argument and the Constitution would be adapted without formally amending it. Debates were waged over whether or not the Constitution could be changed through interpretation instead of the originalist requirement of amendment, and over whether or not the Constitution was to be viewed as living. The notion of a “living constitution” was developed, and slowly set precedent as landmark cases made their way through the supreme court, and the interpretation of the constitution was put to the test.

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

Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the

The United Kingdom (UK) is one of the longest living monarchies in Europe and has the longest Parliament. In legislative terms, the UK is a non-federal state that is composed of three countries (England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and one principality (Wales) (Slapper & Kelly, 2008). Surprisingly, UK is one of the few countries that do not have a written constitution: however, UK has a body of law that is of constitutional significance. Furthermore, UK law is also not codified, process