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. There has never been a ‘constitutional moment’ at which the fundamental rules required clarification and laying down in a single document; instead, there has been an unusual continuity in the governing institutions; It has relatively been peaceful, hence, no need for a written constitution . However, this cannot be said of the codified constitutions, which tend to come about after there has been a severe rupture in the political system of the country concerned. For example, revolution, civil war, the ending of dominance by another country . In recent years, the UK’s constitution has become partly written; shifting from a more political to a more legal form of constitutionalism (this can be seen in the power conferred on the courts to review government decisions on human rights ground.
Moreover, the British constitution has shown itself over centuries to be extraordinarily dynamic and flexible, with the capacity to evolve in the light of changes in circumstances and in society. There are many who
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 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
A written constitution is considered the highest form of law and is respected because of this. There is no such principle in the British constitution because sovereignty lies with Parliament.
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.
A governmental system is required in each aspect of our lives to maintain justice and regulate order through a reasonable and unbiased approach. Rules and regulations need to be implemented within society to ensure that the fundamental freedoms of individuals are guaranteed, both equally and justifiably. This paper will discuss the importance and relevance of constitutions to our everyday lives, with a particular focus on the Canadian Constitution and how it essentially allows us to live in a democratic and free society. According to Christopher E. Taucer, constitutions “empower the government by setting out bodies with authority and their powers and limits on that authority,” (2001, 1) and hence, lay out the collective values within a
The paper confronts assumptions about the English and UK constitutional framework leading up to the Magna Carta and other documents that both lead up to, and follow it. Our constitution has roots in English common law and written law. Common law was in place and used before written laws were created. The Magna Carta was emplaced to end common law in England. The Manga Carta was the first written laws that shifted the English political system to something
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
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
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 is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be
It is necessary for the better understanding of the topic to discuss briefly codified and uncodified constitution and give definitions for both of them. According to Heywood (2013), a codified constitution is a single legal document that is popularly known as a ‘written constitution’ and that contains key constitutional provisions. However, the traditional approach is to distinct written or codified constitutions with unwritten or unсodified constitutions. Ryan and Foster (2014) notify that unсodified constitution is made up of rules from different sources. In other words, it is not a single document. Also, Finer, Bogdanor and Rudden (1995) describe an uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom as indeterminate and indistinct. According to Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson (2009), only three liberal democracies that are Israel, New
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
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
A majority of judges even said obiter that Parliament could not extend its lifetime beyond five years, even if the 1911 Act was to be expressly repealed and the extension bill then passed. That leads to the question if there are basic constitutional rules that parliament simply cannot change. Lord Steyn and Lord Woolf held that the courts might have to revisit the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, if Parliament sought ‘to abolish judicial review of flagrant abuse of power by government or even the role of the ordinary courts in standing between the executive and citizens’. In such an event, the court might have to ‘qualify’ the supremacy of Parliament, ‘a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism’.
New Zealand is one of the countries in the world that has unwritten consititution and it is vital because it is the base of a government on how to govern a country based on it. Having a written constitution in New Zealand will give New Zealanders more access about certain documents on the consitution itself. On the other hand, if New Zealand continuously having an unwritten constitution, the citizen may not have knowledge on it due to limited access on it. This essay will clarify on constitution and what is a written constitution. This essay also covers the need to include the Constitution Act 1986, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Arms Act 1983 and removing the Public Sector Act 1988 from it.