Considering the given statement, it is reasonable to view the current state of the British constitution as unsatisfactory to an extent. I will aim to address this firstly by going over the fundamental principles of a constitution, and introducing some of the proposals that have been brought forward for a written constitution. Secondly, I will then argue that even though it is suggested that codifying the constitution would result in the balance of the power of the executive, give further stability, and greater accountability, the current constitution already holds these positive factors in its current uncodified state. Then finally reaching the conclusion that, Britain should not adopt a written constitution due to its history, the sources …show more content…
Despite this argument, if it were to be codified it would be a definite step towards depriving the constitution of one of its most important characteristics, its flexibility. The flexibility, which the British constitution is recognized for, is essential “to ensure that the legal framework of the constitution is operated in accordance with the prevailing constitutional values of the period.” This allows changes to be made to the constitution according to the current political and social circumstances. As supported by Bogdanor, Khaitan and Vogenauer the lack of a codified constitution means that Britain did not need to formulate statements or laws, as doing so would quickly render it redundant because of political change. For example, a constitution, which was drafted in 1830, would have included declarations about voting rights and the powers of the House of Lords, which would have become redundant after the Great Reform Act of 1832 ,. Additionally, the constitution’s flexibility allows the uncomplicated development and change within the constitution, while its legal aspect remains unaffected . An example of this would be the creation of the ‘Sewel Convention’ in 1999, which prohibited Parliament from legislating on matters that had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament without obtaining its consent beforehand. Therefore, as stated by Professor Ringen , “The British constitution is a complex and evolving living organism,” characterized by its flexibility which proves as an evident advantage for society due to the possibility of the constitution to evolve with society and current political values in a way in which a tennis club, as suggested by the given statement, does
The constitution of the UK is very unique compared to the constitutions in other European countries. In this essay, I will talk about the features of the UK constitution, the sources of the constitution and the principles, which guide it. This essay will also include key points about the uncodified nature of the constitution, and the advantages and disadvantages that come along with it. A topic of discussion has been whether or not the uncodified nature of the constitution of the UK should remain the same, or if, it should be codified. I will further discuss these ideas in this essay and highlight the pros and cons from both sides – codified and uncodified.
You may think that the Constitution is your security - it is nothing but a piece of paper. You may think that the statutes are your security - they are nothing but words in a book. You may think that elaborate mechanism of government is your security - it is nothing at all, unless you have sound and uncorrupted public opinion to give life to your Constitution, to give vitality to your statutes, to make efficient your government machinery. (Brown)
In conclusion, equivalent contentions on the constitution being static or adaptable demonstrates that certain parts of looking at the constitution shows alternate points of view on whether it adjusts to the needs of the Australian public. Subsequently, the general population ought to be mindful of any alterations made or to be made to guarantee the significance and needs of the nation is fulfilled.
The question raised in the title of this paper is: Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago, still relevant today? Of course, they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact, we will examine each of the ten amendments, rewrite each one using common everyday language of today, and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment, I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. Without the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy, would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
The United States is known as the land of freedom, which permits, everyone to have their own opinions, and allows everyone to be able to convey them to others, this is permitted by the Constitution. The founding fathers had many contrasting point of views, regarding the formation of the Constitution. Patrick Henry, and James Madison had very diverse point of view, with regards to the government of the recently independent colonies.
Some people have always wondered whether the making of Constitution of the United States was, in fact, supposed to happen at the Constitutional Convention or if it was even supposed to be drawn up in the way it was. In this essay, I will summarize to different views on what went on at the Constitutional Convention and how the Constitution of the United States come about. I want to emphasize that none of these views or theories discussed in this essay are my own. The convention that is referred to was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It began In May of 1787.
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.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
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.
Marshall believes “conventions are non-legal rules regulating the way in which legal rules shall be applied”[2]. Being a major part of the British constitution, they function as a “record of successful applications or precedents”[3] and accept the “patterns of social behaviour and opinion”[4] of an evolutionary nation. Even though they are not enforced by courts, due to their constant progression adapting to current events, these rules of constitutional behaviour are overlapping law and taking over the practice of political appointments. In the following essay we will explain how constitutional conventions differ from laws and discuss their general purpose and importance. Constitutional conventions are different from laws in their enforcement.
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.