A major issue in the United Kingdom legal system is the lack of a written constitution. Many people believe that a written constitution would provide greater accountability and democracy. However, other people believe that the traditional unwritten British constitution would provide greater protection. The fact that we have pressure groups and associations such as Charter88, who are campaigning for a written constitution, show that this concept is very controversial.
A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government: regulate the relationship between and among the institutions: and define the relationship between the state and the individual. There are many different types of constitution. Constitution can be codified or uncodified, unitary or federal and seen as rigid or flexible. The most common way of comparing classifying constitution is codified or uncodified. The UK is an example of an uncodified constitution whereas the USA is an example of codified constitution. This essay will show that UK should not adopt a codified constitution.
A codified constitution is a constitution in which key constitutional provisions are collected within a single document, it is commonly known as written constitution. Codified constitutions have three key features. In a codified constitution the document is authoritative in the sense that is constitutes higher law. The constitution blinds all political institutions. The codified constitutions are entrenched. This means that they are difficult to amend or abolish. As a codified constitution, it sets out the duties, powers and functions of government institutions in terms of 'higher law' and it is judiciable. The other type is an uncodified Constitution. An uncodified constitution is a constitution that is made up of rules that are found in a variety of sources, in the absence of a single legal document or written constitution, Unlike...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document