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.
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.
Since the system is continuing to work, why change it? Many countries have changed their constitution to codified because of revolutions or other major events, including Russia, France, and Malaysia. The UK has not had anything to the sort; therefore there has never been a reason to change to the codified system. Therefore the constitution should remain uncodified. Another benefit from not having a codified constitution is that it would be extremely difficult to change to a codified constitution.
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.
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
There are also many other small states, and they would definitely disagree with the way that Virginia decided. However, the New Jersey plan satisfies both large and small states. This plan allows government to function more nationally and gives equal representation to each state. It is unfair
One way these rights could be defined is through a bill of rights that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual and also defines the legal extent the civil liberty. However, codified constitutions are sometimes to rigid as higher law is harder to change than statute law. It is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament then to amend a constitution as the Constitution is so entrenched. Therefore, it is difficult to keep a constitution up-to-date, this is very bad, especially in our modern ‘ever-changing environment. Furthermore, if we adopt a codified constitution then one of the key principles in the UK’s representative democracy would be completely undermined, Parliamentary Sovereignty would effectively be abolished as a codified constitution would mean the establishment of an authority higher than
American came after the revolution, Germany’s after the abolishment of the fascist regime. It can therefore be said that, in the past, the advantages to adopting a codified constitution did not outweigh the disadvantages to doing so. Prior to Labour taking office in 1997, little change had been made to the constitution since 1689 – and changes were made as and when needed. However, the changes made during Labour’s 13 years in Government have led some to believe that a codified constitution is now required, and topical issues such as the Human Rights crisis preventing the deportation of known terrorists has meant increased pressure from the voting population. The conservative view on the situation is that the current arrangement works, and is stable; and therefore there is no need to change it.
Thereby we cannot evaluate the work of professionals the same way as amateurs. Books also are considered very important in this article, however I don’t believe that they are as reliable as professors. Although they are highly educational, sometimes it is not easy to verify the authenticity of the source. In other words some books are not trustworthy since they are merely commercial and written by ordinary people. Thus I believe that by omitting this detail Robinson has restrained his vision of the matter.
Also, America is usually willing to help other countries because some of those countries may be able to help us in return. Without these partnerships that we currently have, the United States may no be as strong as it is today. I believe that the United States should not follow this policy in the modern world mainly because of how strong we have become. In the modern world, even if we were isolated I think that war would be unavoidable since conflict is quite common between such different countries. Isolation would not make the citizens happy because some countries do not have all the appropriate resources to live comfortably in a modern world.