The Differences Between the UK and US Constitutions
The question invites an analysis of how the differences between the UK
and the US constitutions establish the political systems in both
countries, and further whether there is distinction between the
political systems. Initially I will define what a constitution and a
political system are. Subsequently in the main body of the text I
shall analyse the differences between the constitutions, and how they
influence each separate political system. Loosely defined, a
constitution creates institutions and should state any definite power,
indicates the relationship between different state institutions, and
how the constitution can be amended. In my essay I shall illustrate
the differing state institutions in America and Britain, who has the
power according to the constitution, and accordingly which state
institutions wield the power and authority, and additionally if the
difference in ease of changing the constitution is responsible for a
difference in political system. In my conclusion I shall assess
whether my investigation is corresponding to the statement.
Friedrich (1937) believed a constitution should be 'a system of
effective regularised restraints on government action, therefore
should be a statement of individual rights.'[1] This leads to the
question, should a constitution include a Bill of Rights like the
American constitution's amendments? In America there are freedoms in
religion, speech and the press for example, yet Britain has no
enforceable Bill of Rights in its constitution. There are essential
rights and freedoms in the European Human Rights Act but this is at
the h...
... middle of paper ...
...rnment and Politics: An Introduction (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001),
p. 186.
[2]James Q. Wilson, American Government (Boston: Houghton, 2000), 54.
[3]Simon Hix, "Britain, the EU and the Euro," in Patrick Dunleavy,
Andrew Gamble, Ian Holliday and Gillian Peele, eds., Developments in
British Politics, (Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd, 2000), p.54.
[4]Wilson, American, 32.
[5]Vernon Bogdanor, "Britain: The political constitution," Vernon
Bogdanor, ed., Constitutions in Democratic Politics (Aldershot: Gower,
1988), 56.
[6]Hailsham cited in Bogdanor, "Britain," 66.
[7]Richard Hodder-Williams cited in Joseph Hogan, "The no-win
Presidency and contemporary presidential-congressional relationships,"
in Robert Williams ed., Explaining American Politics: issues and
interpretations (London: Routledge, 1990), p. 48.
Consistent to eighteenth-century ethos left the Constitution-makers with great faith in universals. They believed in an inexorable view of a self-interested man. Feeling that all me were naturally inclined to be bad they sought a compromising system of checks and balances for government. This was bolstered by the scientific work by Newton, ?in which metaphors sprang as naturally to mens minds as did biological metaphors in the Darwinian atmosphere of the late nineteenth century.? Therefore Madison and others thought to squelch the possibly dangerous majority by setting up a large number and variety of local interests, so that the people will ?be unable to concert and carry into effect their scheme of oppression.? And thus, chief powers went to the propertied.
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.
The United States Constitution is one of the most used documents in American History, as it is the foundation of American democracy. Within the constitution, the tenth amendment grants, “…The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Thus, Texas also has a Constitution, which outlines important powers within the state, itself. Both of these documents are extremely important to understand together, but to also understand their differences. Some examples of the differences between the Texas State Constitution and the United States Constitution include, the powers of the President and the Governor, the varying Legislative sessions,
Presidential Influence in Congress." American Journal of Political Science 29.2 (1985): 183-96. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2014.
Shugart, Matthew. "Elections: The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective." Presidential Studies, 34, 3 (September 2004): 632-656.
Dye, Thomas R. , L. Tucker Gibson Jr., and Clay Robinson. Politics In America. Brief Texas Edition ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2005.
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.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
In 1918, while the rest of Europe was still engaged in World War I, a newly formed communist government was developing in Russia. Much like 18th century Americans, they had just managed to overthrow what was viewed as a tyrannical government and hoped to form a new nation free of the injustices of the previous rule. Both countries wrote a new constitution as well as a declaration of rights to facilitate this, but their respective documents had vast differences. These disparities stemmed from differences in the ideologies of the new governments. The primary objectives of the Russian Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People and the later constitution were the “abolition of all exploitation of man by man, complete elimination of the division of society into classes, merciless suppression of the exploiters, socialist organization of society, and victory of socialism in all countries.” Americans wanted equality of opportunity and personal freedom instead of the social equality desired by the Russians. The American constitution and Bill of Rights were created to protect personal liberties and individual freedom while the Russians were more concerned with the welfare and equality of the population as a whole. This difference is partially due to the differences in the conditions leading to revolution in each country. The American Revolution was initiated by the wealthy in response to what they considered unfair treatment by a foreign ruler while the Russian revolution was instigated by the poor in reaction to centuries of oppression and exploitation by the wealthy within their own country.
... middle of paper ... ... Web. The Web.
Ken Kollman, The American Political System, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2012), 25, 322-323, 330, 449.
The United States Constitution, and the later added Bill of Rights, drastically changed the laws, privileges, and rights that were originally outlined in the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is a set of articles that address things from laws for the people to the power and privileges of different branches of government. The Constitution was not fully accepted when it was first written because it was such a large change from the Article of Confederation. The Constitution was written without thinking of protecting citizens natural rights, with this in mind the Bill of Rights was created to outline what the government couldn’t do against natural rights.
As stated in the first paper; The Constitution of the United States was designed to be a framework for the organization of our country’s government. Many foreign countries also have constitutions, which outline the rights of individuals and the powers of the law; such as the Iraqi Constitution of 2005. I will compare the similarities and differences of the US and Iraqi Constitutions and discuss Articles 2, 36, 39, & 90 and women’s rights of the Iraqi Constitution.
“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and separation of powers proved to be the most significant obstacle in the path to emancipation for slaves in the 19th century. The way in which federalism is laid out within the constitution played a monumental role in the communication barriers that arose during the 1906 earthquake, delaying assistance to thousands of Californians. Lastly, a number of constitutional provisions, including voting rights and the 3/5 compromise, impeded the struggle for civil rights in the 20th century, again exemplifying that lack of efficiency that the constitution produces.
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.