The US constitution is commonly described as being very rigid. This stems from the fact that it is codified – laid down in one singular sovereign document, which sets out both the powers and limitations of each distinct branch of government, for instance the fact that each year the President has the power to make the ‘State of the Union’ address, where he outlines what he wants Congress to debate and pass laws on. These enumerated powers have stayed the same ever since the Constitution was drawn up. Furthermore, the US has a notoriously difficult amendment process. First a bill must be passed in both houses of Congress with a super-majority of two-thirds.
A constitution is a set of rules relating to how a state is to be governed and organised. The primary function of a constitution is to provide legitimacy to those in power; however it also defines the limits of government power, protects freedom and distributes power within the political system. As such it could be said that due to the UK having an uncodified constitution there are many strengths and weaknesses, (such as?) however some of these help to make the UK constitution a better one than other countries like the USA who have to stick to their constitution. –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.
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.
Parliament in Britain is generally regarded as making laws that apply to the entire population but there is no universal agreement that it should have unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind. In many constitutions, legal limits on parliament to make laws are set out in their written constitutions but as Britain does not have such a written constitution, does it mean that there are no legal limits on parliament? The traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty was first defined by Dicey in the 19th century in his book “The Law of the Constitution”. According to Dicey’s theory, parliamentary sovereignty means, “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a ride to override or set asides the legislation of parliament.” This idea of parliament being sovereign was formed at time where England was not a democratic country and it could be argued that this theory is dated and can no longer be regarded as an immutable part of UK Constitutional law. If Dicey’s theory is placed in historical context, it was produced in a very different political environment to today.
Firstly, democratic peace is able to promote greater stability in the world as a result of the shared norms between liberal democracies. They have a common code of honor which is clearly stated in the countries’ constitution that requires them to solve dispute in a peaceful manners. In case of clashes in interest among them, they will seek for a solution in round table manners which involved peaceful talks and negotiations. For example, the long shimmering dispute between America and Canada on the sovereignty over the Northwest Passage did not startle arm race between those two powers. This was further elaborated by Maoz and Russett (1993) that political disputes among democratic countries are settled through compromises instead of the destruction of the opposite side.
There are many cases that indicate that the Court often takes the easy way out by listening to public opinion rather than truly upholding the Constitution (Bartee, 2006). This is why the Poe v. Ullman case, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was quickly made invalid just a few short years after it was decided. When the Court makes a decision that does violate privacy rights, groups of American citizens get together to protest and find ways to influence the Court to overturn those decisions (Bartee, 2006). Therefore, in some instances the Court does overstep its boundaries as it did when it made birth control pills illegal. However, it backed down a few years later by changing the decision based largely on public opinion.
Constitutional construction is one mechanism by which constitutional meaning is elaborated. It works alongside constitutional interpretation to elaborate the existing constitutional order. The process of constitutional construction is concerned with fleshing out constitutional principles, practices and rules that are not visible on the face of the constitutional text and that are not readily implicit in the terms of the constitution. We can imagine a continuum of actions that political actors can take under a Constitution, ranging from policymaking to revolution. At one end of the continuum, political actors can take constitutional forms as a given and make policy decisions under it, filling government offices and exercising government power in (constitutionally) noncontroversial ways.
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.
It is not unusual to see board members shedding tears or extending a hand to those who share their criticisms or appreciation. It is in these soft moments where emotion is welcome that I have come to realize that politicians and the US government are not simply a machine that takes input and creates output. Those who decide to run for a seat have a vested interest in the preservation or betterment of America. I wholeheartedly believe that Stillwater’s school board is filled with well-intentioned people. This speaks to success of democracy at this level.
So how can judge create law through the doctrine of precedent? The basic doctrine means every court in the UK is bound to follow any decision made by a superior court and in general, appellate courts are bound by their own decisions. Although this appears that the courts are not allowed to develop law, there are ways in which the judicial precedent can be avoided, in turn, allowing