The controversial issue in question is whether or not the UK has a constitution. On the one hand, It can be said that the UK does not have a constitution because the current system put in place is 'idiosyncratic' (peculiar) in Europe. On the other hand , it can be argued that the UK has a complex and comprehensive system of Government , therefore it has a constitution. The issue then becomes whether or not a constitution has to be written before it can be said to be in existence.
A codified constitution is a single document defining the basic rules of the state , written constitutions are the fundamental laws of these countries. From a wider European perspective , adopting a codified constitution would be highly beneficial because codified
…show more content…
Those entrusted with power are expected to exercise it responsibly . This offers citizens a 'security blanket' because constitutional law is hierarchically superior to ordinary law , and no legislation must conflict with essential principles and rights. In the UK the notion of absolute protection does not exist because the uncodified constitutional arrangement has no legal status. In other words , law does not exist in the shadow of the constitution , valid even if it is not consistent with the constitution. The constitution has no brake on the government , which means they have the power to pass a legislation which conflicts with important principles and rights. This could potentially be a major problem , if those in authority choose to act irrationally or unjustifiably there are no restrictions in place to stop them (theoretically). The fact that the UK is the only country in the EU that has an uncodified constitution suggests that their system needs reforming , so that parliament is not left with sovereign power. Stephen pointed out that '[i]f a [sovereign] legislature decided that all blue-eyed babies should be murdered , the …show more content…
If parliament was to act in such a manner , self-interest would ensure that they were unsuccessful : Public judgment would not stand for it. Any politician who voted in favor of a law which breeched essential human rights would almost certainly lose their parliamentary seat in the following election. Political constitutionalism is strong enough to prevent MPs passing legislations that are not in the best interest of the citizens. This is evident in the Belmarsh Case , whereby the declaration issued in the case faced major political pressure. The government were under immense pressure to repeal part 4 of the Anti-terrorism , Crime and Security Act 2001. This is an example of legal process which resulted in a declaration that the Act was incompatible with fundamental constitutional principles , triggering a political process that resulted in more principles being upheld. Just because law makers can pass laws which don't abide with constitutional principles does not mean that such principles are without any legal implications. It is often possible for the courts to police their conduct - overturning things they have done, where appropriate. This suggests a codified constitution is not needed , an effective constitution ensures that the country is governed well and that transparent and widely
There could be arguments supporting it and arguments going against it. As a result, the citizens of the UK saw a codified constitution as a necessity at that moment. However, there are many advantages of an uncodified constitution. The biggest advantage is the idea of flexibility. As societies are changing, and societal norms take new forms, it is very important for the constitution of countries to adapt to that quickly, as a country’s constitution should be in the best interest for its citizens.
Bamforth,N. Int. Jnl. Of constitutional law. Current issues in United Kingdom constitutionalism: An introduction 2011 9 (1) 79-85 doi: 10.1093/icon/mor029 (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
George Mason explains that when a man has power, he does not use that power with discernment. Once that power is in his hands, he will only crave for more. The nature of power to man is to utilize that power and gain more and more. Mankind are selfish and will only focus on their interests first and forget about the interests of people. A man will do whatever it takes to gain that power. Power is like an addiction, once you acquire a little bit of it, you will only want more. In summarization, man is currently power-hungry and has been power hungry from the beginning of time and will continue to be power-hungry till the end of ages. For this a government is needed and a constitution that all people will be able to comply with and this is the biggest safeguard. Everyone, regardless of their position will have to follow the constitution. The constitution keeps everything fair and is a good safeguard because with this no one will be oppressed and no one will be able to get too powerful either, so it's balanced and fair to everyone. Today this system is valid, because in the current news you can see that people are still very power-hungry and
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
Upon the opening words of the Constitution, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," one must ask, who are these people? While the American Constitution provided its citizens with individual rights, many members were excluded. Elite framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others. Therefore, the Constitution cannot truly be considered a "democratic document." However, because it is a live document, malleable and controllably changeable according to the interest of congress, it has enabled us to make reforms overtime. Such reforms that have greatly impacted America, making us the free, independent nation that we are today.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
The United Kingdom is often said to have no constitution, known as an unconfined, unitary constitution. There is no written constitution like the US it consists of common law statues and constitutional conventions. Whereas in the UK the local government don’t have a lot of control they just merely follow the Westminster rules. The new assembled Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Greater London Assembly have been very little power by the Westminister compared to American states. However “The unitary state
The RP helps to keep our powers separated which avoiding the judicial tyranny. After the formation of the two houses of parliament, which called the legislature, the creation of our statutes prevail to the RP. In the case of De Kayser, RP and statute found to co-exist and statute prevails, for the reason that the representatives in the House of Commons are elected from the public in order to create statute to help the development of the country. Moreover, the constitutional conventions are also part of our unwritten constitution and have conflict to the royal prerogative. Some of the RP powers are included to the conventions such as the automatic granting of royal assent, which the Queen should sign after the convention. Finally, the fire brigades union case mentioned that the executive cannot exercise the prerogative in a way which would derogate from the due fulfilment of statutory duty. The data indicates that the current prime minister, has power to overrule the UK’s parliament recent vote of a military intervention in Syria by using the RP which bypass any common decision of acts of war. Generally, powers such as the parliamentary immunity and prerogative powers, destroy the equality and justice of the society, by giving permission, to avoid the soft process of the legitimate society and finally breaking the rule of law. Supporting this argument, a member of parliament, Jack Straw strongly
Lord Steyn was perhaps the most candid. While he conceded that parliamentary sovereignty is the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution, he claimed that parliamentary sovereignty is a creation of common law and exceptional situations may arise where the courts have to step in to review legislation of the Parliament, implying that even the sovereign Parliament may be subjected to the rule of law.
The UK courts obtain the power to decide whether the governmental authority has acted ‘Ultra Vires’. This ensures they do not act outside limits of their legal power, this includes both formal and substantive grounds. Both proportionality and natural justice are crucial components for judicial review of a case and therefore, formal and substantive elements are required to set out laws. There seems to be no compelling reason that this may not also be the most salient solution for the rule of law, however in my opinion, good procedures are not as rewarding as the laws content when it concerns the publics lives and
Parliamentary sovereignty is a vital principle in the U.K constitution, which demonstrates that there are no legal limitations for parliament when creating/ending any legislation. The extent of impact Parliamentary sovereignty has is that nothing can override the legislation of parliament and it is impossible to bind future parliaments. However, these principles put forward by a constitutional law theorist Dicey, arguably do present political limits to parliamentary sovereignty. When the European law was incorporated in the U.K, parliamentary sovereignty was abdicated to the EU which prioritised European law. Thus, parliament had abdicated its power to another body which is referred to as the transfer of powers. To overcome the issue of EU Supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty the European Communities Act 1972 was passed in order to avoid conflicting views.
This legally ultimate, its source is historically not legal. It is the law because it is the law and not for any other reason that it is possible for the law to take notice of. No statute can confer this power upon Parliament, for this would be to assume and act on the very power that is to be conferred. Firstly, if the Parliament itself decides to abolish its sovereignty and to use a written constitution instead to be adjudicated upon by the judiciary.
The royal prerogative is a source of constitutional law; it is derived from common law powers that have been handed down from the monarchy to the executive. The significance of the prerogative in constitutional law is that it provides the executive with considerable power to act without following ‘normal’ parliamentary procedures. As Dicey explained, the prerogative is ‘every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament’. In constitutional terms, it is therefore important to explore the means by which the UK constitution secures the accountability for the exercise of prerogative powers by the executive. Historically the prerogative was exercised by the monarchy, the majority of powers are now used by ministers, and very few remained the personal preserve of the sovereign.
To begin, we must understand the meaning of the rule of law and why the UK courts implement this constitutional principle in day to day practice. British jurist and constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey paved the way for much of our understanding of the rule of law we know today; giving a strong starting point for academics such as Lord Bingham and Joseph Raz whom later on developed the formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. Dicey has three key principles: no punishment unless there is a breach of the law; Law should not be exercised arbitrarily; and there should be a consistency in the creation of law. Dicey simply means that an individual should be aware of laws which apply to them, they are free to act as they please, whether they