Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison of us and uk constitution
The Constitution of Britain
The Constitution of Britain
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparison of us and uk constitution
A constitution is a set of laws defining the allocation, limitation, regulation of governmental power. This power, in most liberal democracies, is separated among the three branches of the state – the legislative, the judiciary and the executive. The importance of a constitution could not be overemphasized in every country, typically in liberal democracies. Its key functions include establishing the central structure of the state’s government, granting and controlling the governmental power, and determining the way of which the government of the nation interact with its people. The existence of the constitution of the United Kingdom, however, is highly controversial due to its peculiar nature. This essay, applying a positivist approach, regard …show more content…
In his comparative study of the constitutional law, Ridley advanced that the United Kingdom, in fact, does not have a constitution. He mentioned the lack of distinction between the ‘constitutional law’ and ‘ordinary law’, as the formal can be easily changed as, and even repealed by, the latter. This is due to the fact that the British constitution distinguishes itself from other nation with an absence of a special legal mechanism to allow amendments in the constitutions; instead, constitutional rules in the United Kingdom are subsequently replaced or modified when an ordinary Act of Parliament is passed. This reflects the decisive role of parliament in the establishment and development of constitution in the United Kingdom. The legal doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is, nonetheless, criticized by Ridley, as he believes the constitution should be prior to, “outside and above” the system of government, given that the power of government should be distributed by constitution. Adopting a different approach, Anthony King, by placing less emphasis on the prior existence of constitution, argued that in the context of British constitution, the government is the
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.
In conclusion, equivalent contentions on the constitution being static or adaptable demonstrates that certain parts of looking at the constitution shows alternate points of view on whether it adjusts to the needs of the Australian public. Subsequently, the general population ought to be mindful of any alterations made or to be made to guarantee the significance and needs of the nation is fulfilled.
All members of the Society shall be subject to the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Codes of Conduct. Failure to adhere to any College policies may be grounds for the termination of ones membership to the Society upon an affirmative vote of three-quarters of the Society’s active members.
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
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.
Cases on the foundations of a constitutional order, such as parliamentary sovereignty, tend to be rare in any event. But what makes R (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] U.K.HL. 56; [2006] 1 A.C. 262 a significant case, is the dicta regarding constitutional issues mentioned by the judges in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. The discussions of the central issues in the case are in many ways constitutionally orthodox, treating the primary concerns as that of statutory interpretation and adopting a literal interpretation of the 1911 Act. By contrast, the discussion of the wider issues suggest that the judiciary may have support for what could be classed as unorthodox opinions on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is to be considered as a mere ideology in the eyes of the legislature, as the modern day practical sovereign parliament is far from that of the theory.
The United States Constitution is the law of the United States. It is the foundation of this country and the most important document in its history. It provides the guidelines for the government and citizens of the United States. The Constitution will unquestionably continue to carry us into the 22nd century, just as it has for over two hundred years. The principles of the Constitution remain strong to this day, especially with respect to our government and to the Bill of Rights. To terminate the Constitution will essentially serve to undo two hundred years of history. If anything were to be changed about the Constitution, it would be the expansion of its principles, such as the growth of individuals’ rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Marshall believes “conventions are non-legal rules regulating the way in which legal rules shall be applied”[2]. Being a major part of the British constitution, they function as a “record of successful applications or precedents”[3] and accept the “patterns of social behaviour and opinion”[4] of an evolutionary nation. Even though they are not enforced by courts, due to their constant progression adapting to current events, these rules of constitutional behaviour are overlapping law and taking over the practice of political appointments. In the following essay we will explain how constitutional conventions differ from laws and discuss their general purpose and importance. Constitutional conventions are different from laws in their enforcement.
A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated that Congress was denied the power of taxation meaning the national government was given no money to regulate federal spending. Money could only be requested from the states and states had the ability to not guarantee the request. Among the lack of enforcement and taxation was the denied power to regulate commerce trade for the national government in other words the federal government could not build a strong economy. All these factors and others included lead to the fall of the Articles of Confederation. Guiding towards Constitutional Convention, where the present day Constitution was written and signed by 38 of the 41 delegates present on September 17, 1787. This paper discusses why the Founding Father’s designed the Constitution as they did and how this design has affected our system today.
When the Constitution of the United States was first created in 1787, its purpose was to unify our country. However, by 1850, the United States had become 'source of sectional discord and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it had created.' What happened during the 63 years after it was first established to 'contribute to the failure of the union it had created?' One must look at what the Constitution promoted to make the country unified and what it did to make it disunified. Compromises such as 3/5, the Missouri, and the tariff of 1850 all helped to unify and shape our country. However, compromises such as the Fugitive Slave Law, Popular Sovereignty, and the slave trade all led to disunify our country. The large populous states naturally wanted the number of representatives in the new Congress to be based on population. The Virginia Plan provided that there would be two houses of Congress and that in each one representation would be based on population. Like many other ideas that have made history, it was remarkably simple. Why not divide the Congress into two houses? In one house (the Senate) each state, regardless of population, would have the same number of representatives. In the other house (the House of Representatives) each member would represent the same number of people. 'Quite appropriately this came to be called the Great Compromise. Other major compromises came on slavery and on the control of commerce. The southern states, where the slaves were really treated as property, still wanted the slaves counted as people for the purposes of representation in the New House of Representatives. Some delegates argued that if one kind of property was counted f...
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
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.
The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.
It has been observed that most constitutional monarchies have a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have ceremonial duties or reserve powers according to the constitution. In the United Kingdom, the rights and duties of the head of state are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which are just as binding as formal constitutional rules. The monarch’s reserve powers include the power to grant pardons, bestow honours, appoint and dismiss a prime minister, refusal to dissolve parliament, and refusal or delay royal assent to legislation. Strict constitutional conventions govern the usage of reserve powers. If these powers are used in contravention of tradition, it will generally provoke a constitutional crisis.