A major question is being discussed lately in the Parliament. Indeed the Parliament is wondering whether or not the United Kingdom should have a codified Constitution. This question came up due to two important reasons in the actual context. One of them is the anniversary of the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta, meaning the Great Chart, is an English Chart defining the liberties of everyone. Created in 1215 it’s going to celebrate its 800th anniversary which causes a lot of rethinking inside the Parliament. Also, the other main reason is that the Parliament is looking for a more democratic and accessible way for their citizens to have a look at the laws of their country. The question is, would a codified constitution be the right way?
A codified constitution is a text gathering the main laws and other laws drawing the relationships between the structures of a state, and between the State and its citizens. Codified constitutions usually have supremacy over statute laws. This would be the main change in the British system.
In order to prove that the UK need a codified Constitution, we’re going to focus, firstly on the fact that
…show more content…
In fact, a written constitution has the role to define the relationships between the citizens and the state. This would lead to have individual and civil liberties clearer and more structured in the citizens’ mind. This would be in a way more democratic. Nonetheless, applying the third blueprint also has some undemocratic aspects. In fact, we noticed above that having a written constitution would end the Parliamentary sovereignty but it would also start a judicial dictatorship. The Parliament having less power over the laws, the power would be partly transferred to the judges who would be the “police of the law”. However judges aren’t elected in any way by the population which isn’t
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 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 Constitution, which was written in 1787, is a democratic plan of government. A democracy is a government in which the people either directly or through elected representatives are in control. . One reason the Constitution is democratic is that it gives the people the rights of expression in the Bill of Rights. Another reason the Constitution is democratic is because overtime while it was being amended, there were more democratic ideas added to it, such as the abolition of slavery, voting rights, and the changes of the election of Senators. The last reason is that all elected terms have intervals in which the person is either reelected or a new person is elected for the position. Since there are so many democratic elements in the Constitution, it makes it a democratic plan of government.
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.
For a document written in a mere one hundred and sixteen days, it is quite amazing that the United States Constitution still plays an integral role in the government. However, this document, like many important governing papers, has come with controversies and arguments since its establishment as a set of principles with which to govern states. The Constitution of the United States, created in 1787, arose from a need of a new document after the Articles of Confederation that could assert more control over the states. A product of the Constitutional convention, the Constitution laid out the framework for a popular government with checks and balances as well as a separation of powers. Since the Constitution is a relatively short document given
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.
According to Merriam-Webster, constitution means “the mode in which a state or society is organized.” However, this was not the case during the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, through failure of the Articles of Confederation came about the Constitution that provided a stronger government.
Bamforth,N. Int. Jnl. Of constitutional law. Current issues in United Kingdom constitutionalism: An introduction 2011 9 (1) 79-85 doi: 10.1093/icon/mor029 (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
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.
To the social problem of stealing, possible reasons to why people may steal: 1) The Strain
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.
It is important to keep in mind that a term constitutional state theoretically differs from the constitutional democracy, as it does on practice. Any form of government together with electorate may establish a constitution. The bright example of that is totalitarian communism and its formal progressive constitution. There are many more other autocratic regimes around that match those criteria. In simple terms, even if such system applies the laws of constitution and follow all the prescribed rules with the support of the state apparatus and courts, it is only a rule-of-law state or rechtsstaat. It is called a dictatorship, and neither constitutional democracy nor democratic state with the rule of law at the top.