Does the Absence of a Written Constitution in the UK Enable Quick Constitutional Change?

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

In conclusion,the UK government should keep the uncodified constitution. The majority of the people on the whole,

The story of the Canadian Constitution is a long and rocky one. It began in 1864 during the Charlottetown conference in 1864, lead to the implementation of the British North America Act in 1867, before finally being patriated in Canada in 1982 (Dodek 2013, 21, 28). However, it was patriated without the signature of Quebec, putting the future of Canada in peril. Future attempts to open the constitution were messy, and ultimately failures, but there are still some who think Canada should give one more kick at the can (Dodek 2013, 31). The paper will argue that Canada as a country should not re-open the constitution.

Here, McHugh J suggests the basis of constitutional interpretation lies within the “natural meaning of its text, read in the light of its history.” This particular assertion also finds further support in Victoria v Commonwealth where the scope of “the external affairs power” was established via historical references regarding 19th century treaty execution in Australia. Taking such obiter’s into account, it appears the ‘Race Power’ encompasses a more beneficial role - yet, the literalist approach opposes such. Consisting of those who are hesitant to progress outside of the confines of the Constitution, as they believe it should be “interpreted…according to [the words] natural sense and in documentary context,” literalists struggle to comprehend the requirement of Historical reference in such vague sections like that of section 51 (xxvi). Here, the Engineers’ Case acts as further evidence of the High Court’s tendency to negate the use of theoretical analysis via the suggestion that

Perhaps if a written constitution was created there would be too much difficulty in reading the text and trying to discover the literal meaning of each part. Problems with drafting and deciding on the content of the constitution may arise. It is also argued that there is no need to draft a constitution when the “UK’s constitutional arrangement has served it well for several hundred years.” Professor Barber recently stated “it is hard to see what we will gain by undertaking the exercise.” It may turn out that a written constitution is harder to change than an uncodified one and this would create huge obstacles for the UK government as the constitution must evolve and progress with the times.

The controversial issue in question is whether or not the UK is in need of a codified constitution. The absence of a written constitution is 'peculiar ' in Europe , the UK is said to have a complex and comprehensive system of government which regulates the country. The purpose of this essay is to examine the present features of the UK 's unwritten constitution in contrast with other European codified constitutions , an argument as to whether the United Kingdom is in need of a codified constitution will be formulated. This will be done by exploring the benefits and drawbacks of the United Kingdom adopting a codified constitution , and in what way has the existing uncodified constitution served the UK.

The Bancoult N.2 case dealt with 2 main issues; the reviewability of the prerogative legislation where the GCHQ case was presented concluding that the prerogative power was reviewable, and judicial review is applicable. The prerogative order in the council are primary legislation therefore an act of the parliament so there is ‘no reason why prerogative legislation should not be subject to review on ordinary principles of legality, rationality and procedural impropriety in the same way as any other executive action.’ The second issue is about the legality of the prerogative power where it was decided that it was lawful. Lord Bingham and Mance said that ’’ There should be no distinction made from the colonial territories and the British citizens since due to the rule of law everyone has equal rights’’. This case can be seen as a case law that enters not the complexity of

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

Often the UK constitution is asserted to be the most unique in the world, as its sources are a piece of historical significance as they come from great British heritage. From the case of Jackson and others v Her Majesty’s Attorney General, Lord Steyn stated that ‘We do not in the UK have an uncontrolled constitution’. In general terms a person may judge the UK constitution to be uncontrolled due to it being unwritten, as it is derived from a wide range of sources. Which vary from common law to international treaties. However on the other side of the spectre, a written constitution is one like the USA’s, embodied into a single document. Putting aside the fact that the UK constitution is from a variety of different sources, it must be verified that it has worked successfully to this date from 1689 when ‘the supremacy of parliament over the crown’ was introduced, following the glorious revolution. It can also be said that, why would the UK constitution be classed as uncontrolled, if it has worked for hundreds of years and it is still going strong.

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.

The UK constitution is made up from a wide variety of sources, some of which are conventions while others are as more official such as laws found in EU law. The constitution can be found in a number of documents such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. A common source of the constitution includes Acts of Parliament, there exists the argument that many of the Acts that are currently on the statute book are constitutional laws, this can be noted in the case Thoburn v City Sunderland (2002) , where Laws LJ makes a distinctions between what he termed as ‘ordinary statutes’ and ‘constitutional statutes’. Similarly decisions of courts can also become a source of legislation, as can the legislative supremacy of parliament, A.V. Dicey, the British jurist and Constitutional theorist, described this as “the power of law-making unrestricted by any

The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament is often presented as a unique legal arrangement without parallels in comparative constitutional law. It has been one of the principles, which have stood in the heart of the Constitution and constitutional law in the UK. After many years of enjoying the power provided to the Westminster Parliament, the major developments in the UK and European constitutional law have caused many difficulties and challenges to it. For instance the European Communities Act 1972 and the Acts of Parliament 1911 and 1949. New legislation has challenged the main competitions of the Parliament provided by the Parliamentary sovereignty and consequently have questioned the adaptabilty of the traditional doctrine. In order to be able to understand, whether the traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty can be still regarded as an immutable part of the UK constitutional law, it is crucial to determine the criteria by which the immutableness will be judged. In the constantly developing world, however, it is foreseeable that the traditional understanding of the Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer applicable and as every legal rule it has to be constantly adjusting and changing in order to be immutable.

It is established that the UK does not have a single, written and codified constitution that encompasses ground rules on how it should be governed. The first part of this essay outlines the movement of the United Kingdom towards legal constitutionalism which then brings to the consideration of the need for judicial diversity in the second part. To make this argument, this paper analyses the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and European Union (EU) law including domestic laws onto the dilution of political elements in the UK; thus transitioning towards a legal constitution.

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.

It is quite a complicated question whether the UK really has a constitution in its modern sense. Back in the 18th century it was not even a question; the British constitution was recognized and celebrated for its democratic spirit, particularly by French Enlighteners and some of the American Founding Fathers. But since the Americans have decided to write down their principles of government into a document and to call it “Constitution,” and a lot of other countries, such as the newly-freed Latin American colonies, followed their example, the term “constitution” is mostly associated with a document. As the UK does not have a single document of such a kind, it is sometimes claimed that the country does not have a constitution at