More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays about the history behind the constitution
Essay on written constitution
Essays about the history behind the constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The introduction of a written constitution into the United Kingdom would prove problematic for many reasons, firstly the executive wouldn’t have a potent reason to initiate. Legislature wouldn’t entrench due to the conflictions between a written constitution and parliamentary sovereignty and finally courts would not protect as they would be opposed due to there unelected status. However, there are some compelling reasons to consider a written constitution and it is possible that its benefits such as the ability to protect basic freedoms and its unambiguous nature could influence a wider interest, therefore pushing executives to initiate.
For a written constitution in the United Kingdom to be considered it must pass the legislative process,
…show more content…
This would therefore impact the United Kingdom not only domestically but internationally. As well as this a change to the constitution would be problematic when it comes to social progression in the United Kingdom as the influence of pressure groups would decrease, this would be due to the inflexible nature of entrenched laws creating difficulties when amending or abolishing out of date or irrelevant laws put in place, further conflicting for parliamentary sovereignty. This can be seen in America as the written constitution states people have the right to keep and bear arms, this has caused many controversies and still the government have no power to adapt this out of date amendment. Yet, it can be debated that the public would have more say in the initial stages of developing certain amendments as the current government will no longer be able to simply shape the constitution to suit their situation. Furthermore, this would mean that an entrenched constitution throughout the United Kingdom would show structure and strength to other countries, proving commitment to their decisions through a mature democracy. This could encourage public and political interest in a movement towards a written
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
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.
Many would state that the constitution is not a living document and therefore, it does not change to meet the needs of the nation. One purpose behind this contention would be the constitution comprising no Bill of Rights. A Bill of rights is the arrangement of the most essential rights to the natives of a nation. Australia is the main Western popularity based nation with not a protected or elected administrative bill of rights to ensure its natives (Mchugh 2007). According to Lowitja O'donoghue, previous ATSIC Chair It says very little about what it is to be Australian. It says practically nothing about how we find ourselves here - save being an amalgamation of former colonies. It says nothing of how we should behave towards each other as human beings and as Australians. This in itself obviously depicts the incapacity of the constitution as a political rule of the country. A sample would be the situation law of Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Limited (1988). There, a hard of hearing quiet in the Compensation Court of New South Wales obliged manual/visual dialect translation. The translator kept on translaing trades between the judge and the advodates throughout lawful submissions. She persevered in doing so notwithstanding the direction of the judge that the trades did not have to be deciphered. Her emphasis after deciphering everything that happened in the general population ...
authentic document is for the audience to draw their own conclusions without outside influence. This is why a more complex study of the Constitution should include the original and other resources like the Graphic Adaptation.
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.
At the present time, there is nothing wrong with the constitution, and if there was anything wrong with it, it could be changed by referendum, once again proving that becoming a republic is pointless. Currently, we are not tied down at all by the monarchy, and although the Queen does have the power to intervene in the running of our country, she doesn't out of tradition, and therefore, probably never will, bound by the tradition. If we become a republic, we would lose valuable ties with England and perhaps part of our heritage that goes with it. England can support us through many unfortunate events that we may face and England, being on the other side of the world may not, putting them in a position to offer us financial, military or other support.
Without the power of the constitution, each state would make their own regulations regarding how laws should be seen and approached. This also mean that each state would have to make their own money, which we all know that money is the cause of all evil. Without a constitution, each state would also have to set up systems for patents, copyrights, piracy, and declaring war on other states. Simply, without the constitution, the United States as we know it to be today would not exist. Our country would become weak and eventually fall short to many bad rules and laws.
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.
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.
The United States is the oldest yet also the shortest in the world (National Constitution Center). Despite the fact that we’ve had the same Constitution for over 200 years, many Americans still are not very familiar with its contents. In a study in 2011, 70% of Americans couldn’t answer the question “What is the supreme law of the land?” and only 38% could name all three branches of the U.S. government (Hentoff). Completely rewriting the Constitution every 19 years would only worsen this existing problem. If most Americans are that illiterate about the Constitution in its current form than it would be really difficult for them to be literate about it if it were rewritten regularly. As soon as people began to be familiar with its contents, the entire system of government would
Unlike many other foundational documents written by other counties, the US Constitution has held strong from the start. The Constitution is at the center of our everyday lives and is the reason we are able to live with the freedom and security that we do. As the Constitutions author, contents, and effect on the US are evaluated it is very clear why America holds so strongly to the foundation the Constitution set in place.
The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the most important political
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.
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.