UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
There many arguments for and against Britain having a codified constitution but one could say that they are too rigid for such a time of social change. Firstly, a codified constitution is limited government and would cut the government down to size. A codified would effectively end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. Both of which were shown in Blair and Thatcher’s Governments. It would also prevent the government to interfere with the constitution unfairly, as it would be protected by the existence of the higher law and the ‘supermajority’.
These constitutional reforms were proposed to improve democracy and the legitimacy of the governments in the UK however there has been a sense that these reforms have occurred with no real end goal therefore it makes it difficult to consider how effective they will be and if they would even make a difference due to the political framework of the UK. With the UK’s preservation of parliamentary sovereignty it in effect cancels out any proposals to move away from an elective dictatorship and to become more democratic. One reform that has taken place since 1997 is the reform of the House of Lords in the form of the House of Lords Act (1999). This was reform was proposed in two parts. The first phase was the dispersal of hereditary peers with only 92 remaining today and it abolished the voting rights of most hereditary peers.
They also have a number of hereditary peers (although there will no longer be any hereditary peers appointed. There have been many calls to make the House of Lords into an elected chamber as people say that the fact that it is unelected reduces the democracy of the United Kingdom and that it is unfair to have an unelected as the peers may not actually represent the views of the people. However, there are also many arguments as to why the House of Lords should remain unelected. The first and possibly most convincing argument is the fact that an elected second chamber would actually be completely pointless as it would be exactly the same and the House of Commons. This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons.
Another benefit from not having a codified constitution is that it would be extremely difficult to change to a codified constitution. An uncodified constitution is written entirely in one single document, whereas the uncodified system being the complete opposite, with most sources of the constitution being in single documents and some sources like traditions and conventions would be hard to codify. The time, effort and money that would be put into the UK constitution becoming codified wouldn’t be worth it because it would take far too much effort in the current economic climate of recovery. Codifying constitutions and forming new constitutions is usually reserved for revolutions and major changes for a country. Therefore the constitution should remain uncodified because the vast amount effort and time wouldn’t be worth it.
With an un-codified constitution it means that it is very easy for aspects of it to be changed. This becomes an unsettling thought to many given that many of the rules within the constitution are what protect us as citizens and so the idea that this would be very easy to change or even get rid of the rights that protect us is very worrying to some. Liberals argue that if we introduced a codified constitution it would allow human rights to be entrenched thus heavily protecting us as citizens. However in the UK there is already a human rights act that offers some level of protection of these rights. Given that there is already some form of protection it would be fair to argue that the UK doesn’t currently need a constitution as there is and hasn’t been any real threat towards people’s rights.
As your freedom of speech can be heavily hampered if you do not operate within the law; or you are voicing racist or offensive opinions, or your speech is threatening to “breach the peace” this is too say, what you are saying could be grossly offensive to some groups or individuals. The United Kingdom is definitely a democracy though (referring back to the definition) as in the UK we have free and fair (and regular) elections, and there are always 2 or more (3 main) parties to vote for. This prevents the UK from moving from a democracy into a dictatorship, as there are always other options to give your vote. The democracy also calls for competitive elections in which every adult is allowed to vote. There are further features of a Liberal Democracy which need to be held by the UK for it too fall into the category; Elected representatives and the government should be held to account by the people, something which is true within the UK as members of parliament are held accountable to the people, if they don’t do what they promise the people will not re-elect them, they are also held to account by legislature.
Outline Although the founding of the Constitution was a revolutionary, positive turning-point in American history, the US Constitution has a few unconstitutional and democratic shortcomings. Introduction In order to understand the shortcomings of democracy of the US Constitution, is it is important to know the background of its’ founding and how each article serves our country. Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison, asserts the importance of having the image of a democracy without its real substance. There seems to have been a very strong opposition towards democracy at the Constitutional Convention, although the framers were in the midst of creating democratic principles to appeal to the majority of the country.
However on the other hand a separation of powers undermines the idea of political sovereignty, because even though they have gain legitimate power, they are not able to run the country as they wish in terms of financial and economic policies. Flexibility is big problem also as an uncodified constitution allows the government to change the constitution and allows them to amend it to suit the needs of the party instead of the party in office working within the framework of the constitution, this can lead to a dictatorship also and pretty much removes the importance of a constitution, as it does not limit the government, whereas a codified constitution would most likely entrench these laws, meaning they would only be changed in an extraordinary circumstance . Regardless of this it could be argued that due to the ever evolving philosophy, it
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never