Arguments Against Codified Constitution
A constitution is a set of rules that establishes basic principles within the government and its internal institutions. These rules outline the powers and functions of the institutions along with regulating the relationships between these institutions, the state and individuals. Constitutions can be classified in various ways. Like the majority of countries, the USA adopts a codified constitution, a written constitution that has been formed into one single document. The USA’s Constitution and Bill of Rights was founded from the Magna Carta, commissioned by King John of England. However the UK, alongside Israel and few other countries, adopts an uncodified constitution. Despite the UK’s constitution being classified as ‘unwritten’ it draws
…show more content…
The UK’s constitution is partially written yet is still uncodified as it has not yet been consolidated into one single document. The UK’s constitution has developed drastically since the commission of the Magna Carta 800 years ago (1215) yet despite the USA’s constitution being derived from the Magna Carter, the UK has not followed suit in adopting a single document outlining the rules and regulations that the government must abide by. Throughout this essay I will assess arguments for and against the codification of the UK’s constitution.
Critique of the options for change
There have been numerous proposals as to what a codified constitution in the UK should contain. As it stands, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. The Monarch acts as Head of State yet only an elected parliament has the ability to make legislation. As suggested in the Political and Constitution Reform Committee’s report …show more content…
Presently, it seems that the UK has not faulted in the absence of a written constitution as it relies more on precedent than a single written document. If the UK were to have formed a written constitution it would lose flexibility in being able to adapt quickly to state of affairs or crisis. Adopting a codified written constitution limits a countries ability to adapt and change with the times in order to meet the new requirements of the society. Remaining uncodified, the UK’s constitution can continue to develop over time without having to follow lengthy procedures as the US has to. Due to the USA’s written constitution holding the highest authority, in order to change it must follow a formal process of amendment that not even congress has the authority to over-rule. This limitation on the ability for a written constitution to change inevitably restricts a countries ability to grow and adapt as its successors require. The introduction of a written constitution into the UK would not only limit the growth of society over time, but would limit parliaments and the government power. Currently, Parliament may pass laws on any matter they see fit without facing any restriction. A written constitution would deny any laws passed that don’t comply with the
The UK’s constitution is partially written yet is still uncodified as it has not yet been consolidated into one single document. The UK’s constitution has developed drastically since the commission of the Magna Carta 800 years ago (1215) yet despite the USA’s constitution being derived from the Magna Carter, the UK has not followed suit in adopting a single document outlining the rules and regulations that the government must abide by. Throughout this essay I will assess arguments for and against the codification of the UK’s constitution.
Critique of the options for change
There have been numerous proposals as to what a codified constitution in the UK should contain. As it stands, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. The Monarch acts as Head of State yet only an elected parliament has the ability to make legislation. As suggested in the Political and Constitution Reform Committee’s report …show more content…
Presently, it seems that the UK has not faulted in the absence of a written constitution as it relies more on precedent than a single written document. If the UK were to have formed a written constitution it would lose flexibility in being able to adapt quickly to state of affairs or crisis. Adopting a codified written constitution limits a countries ability to adapt and change with the times in order to meet the new requirements of the society. Remaining uncodified, the UK’s constitution can continue to develop over time without having to follow lengthy procedures as the US has to. Due to the USA’s written constitution holding the highest authority, in order to change it must follow a formal process of amendment that not even congress has the authority to over-rule. This limitation on the ability for a written constitution to change inevitably restricts a countries ability to grow and adapt as its successors require. The introduction of a written constitution into the UK would not only limit the growth of society over time, but would limit parliaments and the government power. Currently, Parliament may pass laws on any matter they see fit without facing any restriction. A written constitution would deny any laws passed that don’t comply with the