Arguments for and Against Adopting a Codified Constitution in the UK Sample Essay

A fundamental law is a set of regulations that seek to set up the responsibilities. powers and maps of the assorted establishments of authorities. They besides regulate the relationship between and among the establishments and specify the relationship between the province and the person. There are many different types of fundamental laws. The fundamental law that is in topographic point in the UK is an uncodified 1. In other words. it is non written on a individual measure and consists of assorted written and unwritten beginnings. An uncodified fundamental law is non judiciable. non authorititative and besides non entrenched. A statute fundamental law on the other manus is written on a individual papers.

Codified fundamental laws have three cardinal characteristics. In a statute fundamental law the papers itself is important in the sense that it constitutes ‘higher’ jurisprudence. The fundamental law binds all political establishments. including those that make ordinary jurisprudence. The commissariats of the fundamental law are besides said to be entrenched. This means that they are hard to amend or get rid of. As a statute fundamental law sets out the responsibilities. powers and maps of authorities establishments in footings of ‘higher law’ it is judiciable. This essay will foreground the fact that the UK should non follow a statute fundamental law as an uncodified one which is in topographic point happens to be superior.

On the one manus there are many statements back uping the position that the UK should follow a statute fundamental law. If a statute fundamental law was introduced it would significantly impact the power of authorities. the relationship between the executive and Parliament and the relationship between Judgess and politicians. One statement is that a statute fundamental law would do regulations clearer. Key constitutional regulations are collected together in a individual papers ; they are more clearly defined than in an ‘unwritten’ fundamental law where regulations are spread across many different paperss. There is a batch of uncertainness in an uncodified fundamental law peculiarly to the fundamental laws unwritten elements i. e. convention of single ministerial duty. does the curate vacate even if the error was non his?

A statute fundamental law would make less confusion about the significance of constitutional regulations and greater certainty that they can be enforced. The fact that the constitutution is written on a individual measure which later creates lucidity could interpret into higher engagement rates which are in diminution. This is partially due to the fact that there is a better consciousness of rights and people know precisely where they stand. courtesy of a individual measure papers that clearly defines the political system and people’s rights.

A 2nd statement back uping a statute fundamental law is limited authorities. A statute fundamental law would cut authorities down to size. A statute fundamental law would efficaciously stop the rule of parliamentary sovereignty and later elected absolutism. Elective absolutism is a constitutional instability in which executive power is checked merely by the demand of authoritiess to win elections. In the UK. it is reflected in the ability of a authorities to move in any manner it pleases every bit long as it maintains control of the House of Commons. It would besides non be possible for authorities to interfere with the fundamental law due to the being of higher jurisprudence safeguarding the fundamental law. With the uncodified fundamental law in topographic point we have late seen David Cameron present a new ‘British Bill Of Rights’ which is basically a watered down version of our old rights. A statute fundamental law would besides let for impersonal reading. A statute fundamental law would be ‘policed’ by senior Judgess. This would guarantee that the commissariats of the fundamental law are decently upheld by other public organic structures. Judges are besides ‘above’ political relations and they would move as impersonal and impartial constitutional supreme authorities.

A statute fundamental law besides has educational value. A statute fundamental law high spots the cardinal values and overall ends of the political system. This would beef up citizenship as it creates a clearer sense of political individuality which may be peculiarly of import in an progressively multicultural society.

One of the strongest statements in favor of a statute fundamental law is that a statute fundamental law would protect rights. Individual autonomy would be more firmly protected by a statute fundamental law because it would specify the relationship between the province and the citizens. As a consequence of this rights would be more clearly defined and they would be easier to implement than with the current uncodified fundamental law that exists in the UK. An uncodified fundamental law can besides take to elective absolutism which further restricts rights. One manner these rights could be defined is through a measure or rights in the statute fundamental law. A measure of rights is a papers that specifies the rights and freedoms of the person. and so defines the legal extent of civil autonomy. In Britain there is no measure of rights on terrorist act statute law which exposes the weak protection of rights that an uncodified fundamental law offers.

On the other manus there are many statements against the thought of a statute fundamental law. One statement is that statute fundamental laws are considered stiff. Higher jurisprudence is more hard to alter than codified jurisprudence. It is easier to and quicker to present an Act of Parliament than to amend a fundamental law. Uncodified fundamental laws are flexible as they are non entrenched like statute fundamental laws. Due to the stiff. inflexible nature of statute fundamental laws it is hard for the fundamental law to stay relevant and up-to-date. Codified fundamental laws can’t be changed easy and hence happen it hard to react to altering political and societal fortunes. Flexibility is a really of import. for illustration. the UK’s unwritten fundamental law has allowed degeneration in Scotland and Wales. this was a response to lifting patriotism and it was really effectual in maintaining both states experiencing apart of the UK as we were able to allow them at that place ain authoritiess and Welsh assembly. It is a utile ability for a fundamental law to be able to accommodate in the modern ‘ever-changing’ environment. codified fundamental laws are stiff and hence this is a major downside to their cause.

A 2nd statement against following a statute fundamental law is judicial dictatorship and democratic regulation in the UK. The UK’s long-period of unbroken democratic regulation is frequently seen as a strength of the uncodified constitutional system. In the UK’s uncodified fundamental law. supreme constitutional authorization is vested in the elective House of Commons. Changes to the fundamental law hence come about due to democratic force per unit area. For illustration. the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 because of a turning belief that an unelected 2nd chamber should no longer have the right to barricade policies of the elective authorities. Under a statute fundamental law Judgess would be the people patroling the fundamental law. Judges are unelected and societal unrepresentative which would take to a democratic shortage due to a deficiency of democratic legitimacy. A statute fundamental law would be interpreted in a manner that is non capable to public answerability. It may besides be interpreted due to the penchants and values of senior Judgess.

Another statement against following a statute fundamental law is that Parliamentary sovereignty would be efficaciously abolished. The rule of parliamentary sovereignty provinces that parliament can do. undo or amend any jurisprudence it wishes. With a statute fundamental law parliament would non be able to do. undo or amend any jurisprudence it wishes due to the being of the fundamental law. and potentially a measure or rights. This is because a statute fundamental law would move as a signifier of higher jurisprudence. Therefore. a statute fundamental law would sabotage one of the cardinal rules in the UK’s representative democracy.

A less of import but still valid statement against a statute fundamental law is that it is unneeded. Many people believe that the uncodified constitutional nature of UK political relations has ensured we have a long-history of democracy. For illustration. the Atlee post war authorities saw through extremist reforms and the public assistance province was so born which is today still one of Britain’s biggest political accomplishments. Codified fundamental laws may besides non be the most effectual manner of restricting authorities power. Bettering the cheques and balances in our political system may be a better manner of forestalling over-might authorities instead than holding a statute. written fundamental law.

Looking at both statements. there are strong instances for both positions on whether the UK should hold a statute fundamental law or non. This essay argues that the UK should non follow a statute fundamental law. This is for many grounds including: inflexible ; judicial dictatorship ; parliamentary sovereignty and that it is unneeded. The most damnatory factor has to be that it is inflexible. Codified fundamental laws are by nature entrenched and higher jurisprudence regulations over codified jurisprudence. In the UK if our Torahs need to be changed so codified jurisprudence can be changed through the passing O fan Act of Parliament. With a statute fundamental law it is much harder to alter Torahs and therefore fundamental laws can go out-of-date with a quickly altering modern society. For illustration. the USA needs two tierces of a bulk of Congress ( 38plus/50 provinces ) to do amendments to the fundamental law. This has made it earnestly hard to undertake the USA’s job of gun offense as ‘the right to bear arms’ is entrenched into their fundamental law. It still remains that uncodified fundamental laws are more flexible and easier to alter than statute fundamental laws.

Overall. there are two strong statements for and against a statute fundamental law. The chief statement for a statute fundamental law is that it provides clear regulations and Acts of the Apostless as a confining factor on authorities. On the other manus the statements against a statute fundamental law are that it is stiff and could take to a democratic shortage due to judicial dictatorship. This essay has argued that the UK should non follow a statute fundamental law because in modern times and scenarios e. g. terrorist act. it is better to hold a flexible manner of altering Torahs instead than a stiff system. Therefore. the UK should non hold a statute fundamental law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *