Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Good and bad things about the uk's unwritten constitution
The history of separation of powers in the uk
United kingdom constitution assignment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Theory of Separation of Powers
Constitution is a set of rules which details a country’s system of government (Elliott & Quinn 2009, p. 2). Most of the time, the constitution is a written document, but in Britain, the constitution cannot be found written down in one document, and is known as an unwritten constitution. There are three basic fundamental principles of Britain’s unwritten constitutional tradition which are:
• The Separation of Powers;
• The Supremacy of Parliament; and
• The Rule of Law
Separation of powers, briefly explained, is the principle that too much power should not be invested in the hands of a single person or body (Elliott & Quinn 2009, p. 1). The Theory of Separation of Powers holds that the three organs of government
The basis of Montesquieu’s theory was that these types of power should not be concentrated in the hands of one person or group, since this would give them absolute control, with no one to check that the power was exercised for the good of country. Montesquieu stated that each type of power should be exercised by a different body, so that they can keep an eye on the activities of the other and make sure that they do not behave unacceptably (Elliott & Quinn 2009, p. 1). Since all three powers are related and dependent on one another, it would be dangerous to a body having a complete control over all three by having the three essential powers of a
Lord Chancellor has played a central role in the English legal system, but the position is currently being reformed following persistent criticism due to the theory separation of powers which stated that the state powers should operate independently and any of it should not be combined. The Lord Chancellor has had such wide powers, which extended to all three state powers. First, the Lord Chancellor’s judicial power which is one of the most prominent power that he has. The Lord Chancellor has been a judge in the House of Lords and Privy Council, President of the Supreme Court, and he has also officially been President of the Chancery Division of the High Court. As for his legislative role, the Lord Chancellor has been a Cabinet Minister and Speaker of the House of Lords. Although technically appointed by the Queen, the Lord Chancellor is actually chosen by the Prime Minister and goes out of office when that party loses an election, as well as being eligible for removal by the Prime Minister. The executive power of the Lord Chancellor is government minister, he was at the head of the Lord Chancellor’s department. He had powers to give directions about the business of the courts, and responsibility for the Law Commission and the state funding of legal services. Most controversially, he has had control over the judicial appointments. It is clear that the powers of Lord Chancellor is against the theory of
Our Constitution establishes three branches of government and defines their very existence. The reason for the three branches is to separate the powers. The phrase “separation of powers” isn’t in the constitution, but it best explains the intention of the Constitution. It is essential that the assignment of lawmaking, enforcing and interpreting be spread out among the separated powers to ensure that all power doesn’t fall into the lap of one group, or even a power-hungry individual. The powers of which I’m speaking that were intentionally separated by way of the Constitution are the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and finally, the Judicial Branch.
At the heart of any government is the constitution, and here we discover the first major difference between the American and British democratic systems. The Constitution has never been written in one conclusive and final document, but depends largely on practices accumulated over the years. “Its most important features are no part of its formal and legal structure and have little other sanction beyond use and precedent.” (Amery 1) This easily adaptable format differs sharply from the American Constitution, a formal organization written at the start of the Union and which created formal means by which the Constitution could be changed.
Liberal democratic society emphasises a need for separation of power/ three branches/ oversight, to prevent a large concentration of power and uphold liberally democratic values. May be useful to make use of and quote Montesquieu’s separation of powers system, the “tripartite” system, from “In the Spirit of the Laws” (1748):
The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States that provides framework for the organization of the government. The Constitution was made from May 25- September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation, however the founding fathers replaced the Articles. There was several controversy in giving the leaders too much power, therefore the Constitution made basic principles, (o/i) three branches of government, (Doc 1) a system of checks and balances, (Doc 2) and included the Bill of Rights. (Doc 3)
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
A constitution is the totality of laws and principles that any governing body or nation has acknowledged to be ordered. It provides guidelines to the government on how the country’s governing bodies are to be administered. It also plays up the fundamentals and principle structures, purposes and limits of governing bodies. The constitution also can be expressed in both the written or unwritten methods. Hence, this essay will discuss around the first appearance of a written constitution in the United Kingdom and the view regarding to a relatively straightforward legislative task.
The principle of the separation of powers is the ‘division of state and federal government into three independent branches’ . This divides the governmental power between the three divisions of the constitution, ensuring the state power is equal and is not violated by an individual branch. In concurrence with the principle of constitutionalism, separation of powers also ‘limits the power of the state’ . The separation of powers also specifies that the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the government should all be separate. ‘In a nation which has political liberty as the direct object of its constitution no one person or body of persons ought to be allowed to control the legislative, executive and judicial powers, or any two of them’ . This again is to ensure that state power is not violated by two branches combining and overriding the power the government has.
Separation of powers reinforces the way in which powers are used by the bodies of the state and it divides governmental powers between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary in order to prevent abuse of powers in all three bodies. In order to prevent abuse of power, Queen’s powers has been limited as before Queen had more personal power.
This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group.... ... middle of paper ... ... Carl F. Stychin and Linda Mulcahy, Legal Methods and Systems, (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
Firstly, I am going to discuss the core definition of a constitution, exploring the difference between codified and uncodified and assessing the complications of the two categories. Secondly, I shall explain the essential characteristics of a constitution as outlined by FF Ridley, applying Ridley’s test to the United Kingdom in order to establish whether the country can be defined as a constitution. Finally, I will analyse the advantages and disadvantages of adopting a codified constitution, evaluating other countries in comparison to the United Kingdom, to determine which would serve the country most appropriately.
The Theory of Separation of Powers wrongly assumes the equality of all the three organs of the government. The legislature of the state is always regarded as the primary organ of government. The work of the government begins by law-making. However, in actual practice the executive acts the most powerful organ of the government. The judiciary is the weakest of the three organs, yet it is always held in high esteem by the people. Hence the three organs are neither equal nor equally respected.
Separation of powers refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the main functions of another. The main intention is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. The principle of separation of powers is laid out in Articles I, II, and III in the constitution, in an effort to avoid oppression. The check and balances play the roles of the three branches of government. This structure was furnished so that no one branch will over power the other. The three branches are organized to help one another by being self-governing of the other. The legislative branch contains congress, the judicial branch contains the courts, and the executive branch involves the president.
Judicial review seeks to enforce and uphold constitutional doctrines which govern the UK’s uncodified constitution by scrutinising administrative action. One constitutional function of judicial review is to enforce the rule of law. It can be argued, in defining the rule of law as “negative value...designed to minimised the harm to freedom and dignity which the law may cause in its pursuit of its goals” Joseph Raz characterised judicial review. The principle of which states the executive is to be ruled by the law and subject to it.
A constitution is “the system or body of fundamental principles under which a nation is constituted or governed; it sets up the framework for the Government itself.” Unlike most other nations, New Zealand does not have a singular constitutional document that outlines principles comprehensively. On the contrary our constitution is made up of many different elements, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, the Constitution Act 1986, Constitutional Conventions and parliaments standing orders, as well as a number of further documents and constitutional principles. These elements collectively effectuate the ideas and principles integral to our countries successful governance. The fact that our constitution is not codified in a singular supreme written document is unlike other nations. The most distinctive part of New Zealand’s constitution, when compared to other nations, is that our constitution is not a supreme form of law. The idea of a supreme law constitution is that when ordinary law conflicts with constitutional law it can be declared void by the courts. Codifying all individual constitutional documents and conventions into a supreme law constitutional, would result in a greater check on legislative power. This would result as the Judiciary could strike down legislation if it did not align with the constitutional principles.
A constitution is often defined as the main body of rules either written or unwritten, which describes the government and its method of operation. Besides a constitution just being a set of rules which governs an organisation, it goes into much deeper depth. According to Thomas Paine, he reveals that a constitution is something that is pre-existing to a government, giving legitimacy and defining powers under which a government may act. Due to Britain’s unwritten constitution, there was a sense of ambiguity in the word and whether if there was a constitution at all. Ironically, United Kingdom was once described as ‘the mother country or modern constitutionalism’. This goes to show that constitutionalism here does not require the existence