Arguments Against Codified Constitution

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 theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign” were the words of Dicey in his book Law of the Constitution. A.V. Dicey was a British jurist and constitutional theorist in the 20th century who was adamant and argued extensively about the absolute nature of sovereignty of the Parliament which he derived from Coke and Blackstone. He had said “"Parliament" has

The bill of rights,separation of power,and all the checks and balances are all good reasons why the constitution she be ratified.Some background information you probable want to know about the constitution is the constitution is ratified as are governments rules.Also before the constitution there was something called The Articles Of Confederation.

In codified constitutions, laws are entrenched which makes it harder for them to evolve and adapt to modern requirements because it takes a long time for a response due to the required procedures, which might involve gaining two-thirds majority in the legislature or approval by referendum. As a result, one can argue that countries with codified constitutions struggle to find a resolution to their dogmatic laws. For example, the USA are still unable to introduce stricter gun laws because it opposes the constitutional right for citizens to bear arms, even though

Following on from the preceding discussion, then, it is possible to explore the types of constitution in existence. From the aforementioned distinction, we can observe correct – rule with a view to the common good – and deviated – rule with a view to the private advantage – constitutional arrangements. Within each of these are three types of constitution. The three correct types of constitution comprise a kingship, an aristocracy, and a polity; the three deviated types of constitution consist of a tyranny,

18 Since all these principles have been described in broad terms, the flaw of the Constitution is that there is no absolute method of interpretation, thus no specification or detailed information is provided. 19 Arguably, the initial intention was not to allocate more authority to the Commonwealth. 20

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 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 power of the crown and the authority of the government is limited by the Declaration of Man and the Citizen. One situation where the government is limited is where “Men are born free and remain equal in rights.” (1789, Art, 1, DRMC.) The government must give all men equal rights. The rights of man include “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” (1789, Art, 2, DRMC.) Both the power of the crown and the authority of the government are limited by (1789, Art, 3, DRMC.) “no individual can exercise authority which does not emanate from it expressly.” If authority does not originate directly from the crown or a member of government, they may not exercise said authority. “The law has the right to prohibit only those actions harmful to society.” (1789, Art, 5, DRMC.) Neither the power of the crown nor government can prohibit an individual from doing something that is not harmful to society or force an individual to do “what it does not order” by obstructing or changing the law. “The right to concur personally or through their representative in its formation… must be the same for everyone.” Authority must give the same rights to everyone to “concur personally or through their representative.” (1789, Art, 6, DRMC.) In Article 8, the government or power of crown may only punish a person if “strictly and plainly necessary.” (1789, Art, 8, DRMC.) If unneccessary, a person may not be penalized by government or the power of the crown. Individuals

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

For instance, if the parliament, acting on public opinion, was to make a law severely curbing the rights of some minority, the supreme court has the right to struck it down as unconstitutional, irrespective of the public support behind that law. This principle takes into account the notion that popular sentiments should not always be reflected in state policies, especially when they contradict the law. The process of judicial elections, however, is entirely based on public support as the basic legitimizing criteria for the justice system and fails to consider the fallibility of popular opinions. And, when judges are elected to their offices, the cannot work irrespective of public opinion which helped them gain their seat in the bench. Therefore, election of judges contradicts the basic principles of democracy as well as independence of the judiciary.

However if a codified constitution will introduce judicial tyranny then it defeats the object of reducing concentrated power. In the UK currently the people have the ability the put pressure on the government to make changes to the constitution for example the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949 because of a growing belief that an unelected second chamber should no longer have the right to block the policies of an elected government. This was recently changed again so that after the hereditary line to the House of Lords stop after those currently there die. However in a codified constitution judges would be the people policing the constitution, meaning that pressure from the people wouldn’t mean anything because the judiciary are not accountable to the people.

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

A codified constitution would describe and entrench the structure of government, the relationship between different parts of government and the relationship between government and citizens. So it would therefore prevent arbitrary government. An introduction of a codified constitution would protect the rights of the citizens. It is argued that citizen’s rights can only be protected if they are entrenched in a codified constitution.