The Constitution Of The United Kingdom

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

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

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 United States Constitution provides the National Government three distinctive branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial Branch, each with its own form of powers, duties and roles. Separation of powers and duties within the branches enable them to check and balance one another as well as balance the authority of the other two.

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

The rule of law is seen as being one of the most fundamental components of the UK constitution as well as being a principle that is concerned with restricting parliamentary action. Though the rule of law is seen to be a component in the constitution; the actual meaning of the rule of law has been very problematic to interpret. This is considerably down to the fact that it means different things to different people as since the nineteenth century, academics, politicians and judges have proposed diverse definitions and explanations in regards to the rule of law and the role it upholds in the UK constitution.

Dicey named ‘conventions’ the non-legal rules that regulate the way legal rules are applied . Prerogative powers are legal powers held by the crown but exercised by government without the authority from parliament. There is no doubt about their importance to the British constitution but their unwritten nature has caused disputes regarding their extent. Therefore some believe that conventions and prerogative powers should be codified. This could be in legal or non-legal form. Codification might clarify their existence and extent; neither form however will generate a more effective constitution.

In 1787, our founding fathers came up with a few principles that would establish what we now know as the United States of America. These principles were put on paper to serve as a guideline for how the United States would be operated and structured. This historical piece paper became known as the Constitution of the United States. In the Constitution, a Preamble is implemented at the beginning that essentially tells what the founding fathers set out to do.

If someone asked you what document most significantly affected America, what would your response be? In early 1787, Daniel Shay led a rebellion in Massachusetts in which the response time to put it down caused a meeting for the complete re-evaluation of the efficiency of the Articles of Confederation. The final result of that meeting was not an amendment of the Articles, but an entirely new draft called the Constitution of the United States. Since then, this document has not only been referred to as the “supreme law”, but as the cornerstone and foundation of the United States government. Time after time in American history, its guidelines and effectiveness have proven that the Constitution is not a document to be disregarded. Therefore,

The United States Constitution is filled to the brim with ambiguous language that people continue to debate the meaning of. There is one thing, however, the document makes very clear: the legislature legislates and the executive executes. Claims that President Obama has abused his power by passing DACA and DAPA completely ignore this fact. In reality, the president, as head of the executive branch, absolutely has the power to use prosecutorial discretion in how he or she executes the laws.

On June 12, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee, consisting of one delegate from each of the thirteen states, for the purpose of setting up a cohesive Federal Government. Headed by John Dickinson, the committee presented a draft of the Articles of Confederation to Congress a month later. Though the Articles were not officially ratified until five years later, Congress began operating under them in 1777. The delay that occurred during the years from drafting to ratification was partially caused by the opening of a multi-faceted debate that encompassed the issues of representation for citizens, the balance of power within the country, and state sovereignty. Densely-populated states wanted a system of representation based on

In the 1700s when the United States had detached itself from British rule it was then seen as a plutocracy. The U.S established as a democracy; a government of the people and by the people. However, this establishment was in favor of the rich, educated, and powerful and anyone who was categorized or known as elites and it has remained in favor of these people ever since. Yes we can say we have witnessed variations and seen a semi-democratic rise in the past two centuries, but we have remained a plutocracy hidden behind the word that people use to cover its true identity, democracy. Those like the framers, the public opinion role, interest groups, and money all portray our hidden plutocracy.

The constitution, the governing document of the United States, virtually perfect in its creation and given life through the thoughts, worries, and dreams of a few great and very intelligent men, it can be said to be the living law of the land, one that has grown and matured with society and the world of today. This document has performed amazingly in its ability to represent the people of its time and to allow room for interpretation of law in combination with society to allow it to continue to represent the people of the future. Created out of the desperation to preserve a struggling country, this document has been mirrored by others in order to create or recreate governments in many parts of the world. Still, despite of this, it seems that many in power within the United States at this time appear to struggle with the proper interpretation of this living law of the land, and instead manipulate government to achieve personnel agendas or personnel benefit in some fashion, while turning a near blind eye to any influence of constitutionality. So, in response to this, I feel that three amendments should be added to this great document, one out of the spirit of redundancy to illustrate the obvious, and the other two out of necessity to address issues of integrity and stability within government and society. These amendments reflect the issues of term limits to those within Congress, a religious freedom protection clause, and an American Integrity clause; the effects and

The idea that humans inherently possess a set of inalienable rights is a concept that originated centuries ago and has since been evolving. From the signing of the Magna Carta to present day lobbyist fighting for LGBT communities, we can see how this concept is deeply engraved in daily actions and laws worldwide.