–Clear definition of constitution, list some of the strengths and weaknesses in your introduction A strength of Britain having an uncodified constitution is that its nature is flexible. Meaning that the government is not limited with their ability to change governing arrangements by having to go through a lengthy and complex and procedure, as the USA have to go through to just change something within their constitution, as such their constitution has only been changed 27 tines altogether since it was created in 1787. As a result the labour party were able to bring the European Convention on Human Right into British law in 1998 with the Human Rights Act. Cameron will also be able to repeal the Human Rights Act is wants to and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, due to Dicey’s rule of law Don’t you mean his view of parliamentary supremacy?) which is one of the sources of the constitution with one of the three rules being that no Parliament is able to bind a future Parliament.
For example, in the USA the right to own a firearm is entrenched in the Second Amendment and therefore is has been so much harder for those attempting to put restrictions on the ownership of guns. However, in 1996, Parliament was able to impose a ban on handguns after the murder of 16 school children and their teacher in Dunblane. This law wasn’t hard to pass as the constitution can be easily adapted. The fact that the UK constitution may be seen as a negative. This is because it can be interpreted in many ways and may lead to misunderstanding.
Although, on the other hand the soveriegnty of parliament does widely interfere with the judicarys ability to protect civil liberties in britain. Acts of parliament are binding on everyone within the UK including the supreme court. The soveriegn status and power of Parliament puts it above the judicary. This means that if a ruling is passed and the government do not approve they are able to avoid the ruling. This was seen in 2005 when in response to the Belmarsh case the government passed the 2005 'Prevention of Terrorism Act'.
Moreover, no such document could be entrenched whilst Parliament retains the power to alter it at will. Also, as a result of a codified constitution’s rigid structure lengthy procedures must be followed to alter it. As a consequence the US constitution only has 27 amendments and the first ten amendments were made together in 1791 just four years after the constitution was drawn up. In contrast a uncodified constitution is flexible so it can be changed and adopted according to circumstance speedily and smoothly. For example the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867,1884/5 1918/28 changed the constitution by extending the franchise.
The UK has an unwritten constitution as there is no single authoritative document which establishes government regulations. There is a constitutional jigsaw of various sources, such as legislation, case law, Royal Prerogative and Constitutional conventions. These are the main sources of the UK constitution and so merit discussion. This can be contrasted to the USA which has a written constitution, setting out the fundamental laws. I argue that to some extent the UK has a flexible constitution, and Giussani’s statement is partly correct.
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was a significant case that illustrates the fine line the federal government walks when trying to protect the privacy of Americans while also trying to uphold Constitutional law. This case made the possession and use of birth control pills illegal. However, the Supreme Court also felt that illegalizing birth control pills would also strip many Americans of their right to privacy because in order to enforce the law the government would have to appear “in bedrooms to find out what went on” (Bartee, 2006). This case would eventually lead to the legalization of birth control pills so that the federal and state governments would no longer be permitted to gain access to the reproductive information and family choices that American citizens made (Bartee,
When the Labour government implemented these laws they protected traditional parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike Germany or the USA where judges can annul legislations that are found to be in breach of the human rights act. In the UK however judges can only issue a declaration of incompatibility which sends the legislation back to parliament so that they can make changes to suit the HRA. It is difficult to declare on this subject whether or not there have been enough reforms on the Human Rights Act as through one viewpoint it is important to sometimes evade Human Rights to catch potential terrorists on the other hand millions of people have had to sacrifice their right to private life as has been found with the major scandal of NSA spying on internet records. Some people may argue that if you have nothing to hide you should not fear however people still should be able to have
The current UK constitution has so many strengths that reform is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement? In the UK we have an uncodified constitution, which means we have many different sources of the constitution rather than have a single authoritative document, which would be a codified constitution. The most significant source of the constitution is legislation which consists of both Acts of Parliament and lesser legislation like Orders in Council, and rules and regulation made by ministers under statutory authority. Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements.
In a country full of violent crime, the United States continues to embody the gun as integral to it's protection and culture. While the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants the people the right to bear arms, the people must on the contrary protect themselves from those who bear them. In my view, guns give people a false sense of security and are more of a nuisance than a benefit. Guns are a threat to the peace and safety of society. Therefore, since it is unlikely that all guns will disappear in the United States, legislation must be enacted to ban and cease the further manufacture of the types of firearms involved in more violent crime than all others; handguns and assault-weapons.
Placing a ban on many of the weapons that private citizens own today has stirred an uproar as to what this new ban will do to a nation who takes pride in its amendments. Many people believe that there is no way possible to effectively enforce this new weapons ban and that it does take some of the rights away previously given to American citizens through the Bill of Rights. Determining the effectiveness of the weapons ban of 2013, and exploring the differences between the proposed ban, and the weapons ban of 1994 will prove to be