The United States have always insisted that their codified constitution’s only purpose is to serve every US citizen and only them, with no ulterior motives. Can this always be considered the case when said constitution is so difficult to amend and struggles to keep up with the vigorous changes the world endures over the years? Critics often argue that the United Kingdom should adopt the same type of constitution, but if their aim to put their citizens first is reached and done so without the need of a defined document, does it really need to be adopted? Essentially, a constitution is a set of rules which aims to define a country’s system of government, and their purpose is to set out broad principles concerning who makes the law and to allocate …show more content…
Unlike the United Kingdom, it had been deemed necessary for the US to start afresh, for it had experienced a new regime – their separation from the UK’s rule. The first three articles of the constitution are defined by the legislative, executive and judicial branches; which details the rules for each relevant body. As a result of a clearly defined document, a codified document is authoritative and often considered higher law than standard legislation. Secondly, the US constitution is considered entrenched, which enables it to be extremely difficult to amend or abolish. In addition, it is judiciable as the articles outline what is constitutional in the eyes of the government and therefore any future laws are judged against it to garner an idea whether it is constitutional or not. As you can expect, this can pose problems that are often not seen with an uncodified constitution. A variety of sources are able to make rules for the constitution, such as case law. Though a codified constitution is entrenched and judiciable, an uncodified constitution is not and it can be altered through Acts of Parliament and case law, which is entirely flexible. The UK had survived by enacting statutes passed by Parliament, through common law and also through …show more content…
One of the key problems with the lack of a specifically written constitution is that it creates confusion among those that are not certain of the meaning of the constitutional rules. In most cases, the citizens of the United States claim that the first three words of their constitution is ultimately literal It is often put on a pedestal, and because of how definitive the constitution is, every citizen knows their rights and when it is breached, there are clear instructions of what the implications are. The same cannot be said for the UK’s constitution however, as people are often oblivious of the rights they have. In addition, the UK constitution leads to contradictions from their many sources; the UK no longer wished European Union law to be considered a rule of law and therefore began preparations to leave the EU. This risk would be eliminated with a codified
Before the Constitution was drafted, the United States’ budding government, now independent from Great Britain, acted under a dysfunctional constitution called the Articles of Confederation. Although this constitution kept the new nation running, there were still flaws that needed to be fixed. The Articles of Confederation lacked a developed executive or judicial branch and a method for the main government to collect taxes from state governments, according to the background essay of the DBQ Packet. An assembly of fifty-five men eventually gathered for a Constitutional Convention in order to write a new constitution that would better satisfy the people’s needs. The trouble of creating another constitution lied behind creating a document
After the American Revolution, America had earned it’s freedom from Britain. In order to govern this new country the Articles of Confederation was created. This document was flawed by the colonists fear of putting too much power into a central government. Knowing the document needed to be fixed a constitutional convention was called. The document created at this convention has been our constitution ever since. But even the Constitution was meet with criticism. One major concern when writing the constitution was how to protect the citizens rights. The Constitution did this through the preamble, the legislative process, the limit of presidential terms, the judicial branch, and the bill of rights.
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.
The United States of America had a weak central government after it gained its independence, and was on the verge of a depression. Debts which it had incurred from the American Revolutionary War sought to bring down the Union they fought so hard to establish. The Articles of Confederation had kept the federal government from enforcing policies and laws which could bring them out of this debt crisis. The weakness of the central government had prompted the Federalists to write what are known as ‘The Federalist Papers’, which detailed how the constitution must be reformed in order to save the Union. These papers eventually formed the basis of the new constitution, but they could not account for the various compromises and the rapidly changing
The above statement is somewhat mind-boggling. It is something that a revolutionist might have coined over 200 years ago and it leaves much to the imagination. It is about as close to being treasonous as one could get without actually committing the crime. The former Vice-President Albert Gore once stated that "the constitution was a living breathing document, open to change". His statement was quite controversial and it definitely created a stir with the patriot-cult crowd. Why would anyone want to scrap the entire Constitution of the United States of America? Has someone come up with a more impressive document that better signifies what this country is all about?
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
The U.S Constitution is recognized as a document that secures basic rights for citizens and structures the American national government. Before the Constitution, the states had all the power and the national government was very weak. Therefore, the creation of the Constitution was necessary to grant the national government power. Even though, the Constitution was signed in 1787, there was still debate in that the Constitution gave the national government too much power. Some of the individuals whom opposed the Constitution where Patrick Henry and George Mason. Patrick Henry became the leader of the opponents, because of his strong legal and rhetoric skills. On the other hand, George Mason was a patriot during the American Revolution, whom believed in the inalienable rights of the people. These two man were important figures that argued the dangers ratifying the Constitution would bring and that the Constitution would give too much power to the national government.
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.
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
The United States Constitution and the Articles have several ever present difference that some considered to be too radical. In terms of levying taxes, the Articles Congress could request states to pay taxes while with the Constitution; the Congress has the right to levy taxes on individuals. The Articles government had no court system while the Constitution created a court system to deal with issues between citizens and states. The lack of provisions to regulate interstate trade the Articles possessed created large economic problems, leading into a depression in the mid 1780's. The Constitutional Congress has the right to regulate trade between states. The Constitution has a strong executive branch headed by our president who chooses cabinet and has checks on power of the other two branches; the Articles had no executive with power. The president merely presided over Congress. The Articles took almost 5 years to ratify due to the fact that 13/13 colonies needed to amend the Articles before it could go into affect, with the Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus ¾ of the states legislatures or national convention had to approve. During the years under the Articles, foreign soldiers occupied US forts during our early years, we were unable to force them out due to the fact that Congress could not draft troops, and they depended on the states to contribute to the forces. Under the Constitution we have the ability to raise an army to deal with any sort of military situations. In terms of passing laws, under the Articles 9/13 states needed to approve legislation while under the Constitution, 50% plus 1 of both houses plus the signature of the president is needed to pass a law. The Articles had a huge problem when it came to state representation. Under the Articles every state only received one vote, regardless of its size, this hindered the power of the larger states. With the Constitution, the upper house (Senate) has 2 votes and the lower house (House of Representatives) is based on population. When two states had disputes the Articles had a complicated system of arbitration to go through before any resolution was reached, under the Constitution, the federal Court system handles disputes between states.
This essay did mention the role of a codified constitution earlier in the definition section, and what was mentioned was, that a codified constitution does not only create constraints and limitations for the government of the day, but it also is a framework and guideline for how politics should be conducted. This guideline serves as a mechanism of stability and clarity for the work of a government. As Keith Whittington puts it “Constitutionalism is the constraining of government in order to better effectuate the fundamental principles of the political regime.” (Whittington, Keith p. 282) Thus it allows the political bodies to focus on important issues. An example where the
A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...
Although elements of the UK constitution are written e.g. the statute law, sections of it are not. It must be noted that America follow a written constitution called the ‘Bill of Rights’, and by contrast the UK at present do not adhere to a formal written constitution. Therefore, one must consider the arguments for and against a codified constitution to establish a judgement on whether the introduction of a codified constitution in the UK is a beneficial concept to acquire. There are many arguments for adopting a codified constitution in the UK, and there are many pressure groups, political figures and ordinary people who believe that the UK should have one. Our uncodified constitution is old fashioned, and there is not even an agreement about what it actually contains as it is made up of various conventions and statute laws etc.
The word ‘constitution’ is commonly used to describe a written legal document that embodies a set of rules and principles that ‘establish and regulate or govern the government’ of a country. The United Kingdom, however, does not have such a document.
A better appreciation of the complexity of this evolution can come through the development of a comparative perspective. Only when we look at other similar roads can we better discern whether ours was more crooked or less arduous and to this end, the precursor to this course i.e. Constitutional Law 1 (UK and US Constitutional Law) took a close look at two other systems of Government. The US system is important as it can arguably boast of the most sophisticated and well-developed constitutional discourse and one of the oldest constitutions. The British system is intriguing, as it successfully exists without the bells and whistles of a written constitution. What exists instead is a very different system of governmental checks and balances and hence its study provides an interesting counter-balance to the US system, which revolves around a written constitution. Both these systems are additionally worth studying, as they have been important contributors to the theoretical evolution of our own constitutional framework.