The Arguments For and Against a Codified Constitution

The Arguments For and Against a Codified Constitution

A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties,

powers and functions of the various institutions of government,

regulate the relationships between them, and define the relationship

between the state and the individual. The most common way of

classifying constitutions is to distinguish between codified and

uncodified. The UK has an uncodified constitution.

A written constitution is precisely a charter that has been codified,

in that the rules and regulations that citizens / individuals must

abide by are stated in a single document format. Although elements of

the UK constitution are written e.g. the statute law, sections of it

are not. It must be noted that America follow a written constitution

called the ‘Bill of Rights’, and by contrast the UK at present do not

adhere to a formal written constitution. Therefore, one must consider

the arguments for and against a codified constitution to establish a

judgement on whether the introduction of a codified constitution in

the UK is a beneficial concept to acquire.

There are many arguments for adopting a codified constitution in the

UK, and there are many pressure groups, political figures and ordinary

people who believe that the UK should have one. Our uncodified

constitution is old fashioned, and there is not even an agreement

about what it actually contains as it is made up of various

conventions and statute laws etc. Constitutions are supposed to be

the fundamental social compacts by which authority and order are

maintained, and so the UK having a written codified constitution would

not only provide a rigid...

... middle of paper ...

... the UK does not need a complicated

procedure to change it unlike the USA which has a codified

constitution. Parliament can change our constitution when the

electorate votes for change.

Overall, there are valid reasons for and against written

constitutions, in that a written constitution would bring many

economical, social and political benefits, and be a worthwhile move

for the future of the UK, and will protect against arbitrary

government. However by contrast there are also a great number of

arguments against a codified constitution, which would pose the

country a lot of problems if Parliament decided to introduce one. A

valid point is that there may not be many negative consequences of

introducing a codified constitution, but as the present one works

efficiently, I think there is simply no necessity for one.