This is because it can be interpreted in many ways and may lead to misunderstanding. It has become a messy mixture of written and unwritten elements, it does not carry authority of some other constitutions such as that of the USA, this is due to it’s vague nature. It is also argued that its flexibility allows ‘elective dictatorship’, this is because governments would have the power to pass any law without considering if its constitutional or not. The main reason why the word
The British Constitution Briefly explain the term flexible as used in the extract Flexible means that the constitution can be amended easily and quickly as unlike a rigid constitution such as the one in the US, there is no lengthy procedure for change that has to be followed. A flexible constitution it can be altered via the law-making process, by a simple majority in the legislature as no laws are regarded as fundamental. “There is no convincing case for a written/codified constitution in Britain” Discuss To a certain extent there is no convincing case for a codified constitution in Britain. The main reason against a codified constitution in Britain is because a codified constitution would totally undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, the idea that Parliament can legislate as it chooses and that there can be no superior authority to Parliament. Moreover, no such document could be entrenched whilst Parliament retains the power to alter it at will.
According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
To all intents and purposes, they were unable to make the argument in the UK courts that their rights had been breached. Taking a case to Strasbourg is a time-consuming and expensive process. For example, it means that someone who believed that they had not been given a fair trial would have to appeal their case all the way through the UK courts, without being able to have their human rights arguments properly addressed, and then go to the Court in Strasbourg, which might take a considerable time to reach a final decision in the case. Section 2 states that a court considering a question connected with a Convention right must take into account any relevant judgments, decisions, declarations or opinions of the European Court of Human Rights, together with other official decisions and opinions concerning the Convention. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the court to interpret, as far as possible, primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with Convention rights.
Most people really do not know the whole Constitution and it’s entirely but if they did there would be many things they would think is constitional and do not need to be changed. Madison believed to cure the problem remove the cause or control it. We have been using this all this time so obviously it is under control. Now if we decide to make a new one it is not going to make many people happy. It’s possible it will cause many problems and possibly another recession.
In the case of pollution and carbon emissions, it is very hard to actually measure the level of carbon emissions being produced from a company. And even if you can it will be very costly, which means there is an opportunity cost of implimenting the law of how much carbon emissions can be produced. Realistically, all regulation can hope to achieve is a reduction in environmental damage and a movement towards the optimum level of output. A second difficulty with regulation is that the government must have the correct information, and therefore know the optimum level of output. This requires the perfect information which is rarely even achieved.
Why is there no formal UK constitution? There are several theories about why the UK does not have a formal document such as a written constitution. Perhaps the most logical argument is the fact that Britain has been a stable country for such a long time and therefore has not had to deal with an uprising, revolt or internal war for many centuries. Arguments for and against a bill of rights There have been many times throughout the last century when certain political groups have called for a bill of rights for the UK. One particularly strong argument for this would be the symbolism invoked by having a bill of rights clearly showing that the citizens have rights enshrined in law.
As a US citizen, I have never really taken a thorough look at the constitution. I have learned about it in numerous history classes, watched multiple movies, and read many books about the legendary constitution. It is placed on such a high pedestal that you would never think that it was “flawed” according to Sabato. If I were to stop and think about it, I know that the constitution isn’t perfect. However, we’d never think of that right off of the bat.
In addi-tion, the defence must be so strong that the enemy would not even dare to contemplate an attack. This proactiveness is thus not on-ly in defence, but in offence as well. This is a principle that is well understood by any military commander. By being proactive, he is able not only to gain the initiative, but will also have ample time and opportunity to deal with the enemy. On the other hand, if he is placed on the defensive, he is unlikely to come up with effective strategies.
‘The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh its disadvantages.’ Discuss. (40) The codification of a constitution is the process of setting out a constitution in an organised way in a single document meaning it has a single source. The UK constitution is that of an uncodified nature meaning it has various sources and not all these sources are written down. It is questionable whether a codified constitution is better or worse than an uncodified one and personally I deem an uncodified constitution as more effective than one in written form therefore disagree with the above statement. Firstly, a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens of the state.