When looked at in comparison to an entrenched constitution it seems better as in an entrenched system, parliament would be unable to pass such reforms so easily as entrenching something makes it incredibly hard to change. On the other side of the argument, many would say that due to the UK having a constitution whereby the head of Parliament is also the Head of the executive and also with the government mostly having a majority in the House of Commons, it means that the Prime Minister can pass through any legislation that they really want to pass. This could be seen undemocratic of the UK. Moreover, due to the Parliamentary Act of 1949, the House of Lords are only able to delay legislation for one year before it becomes automatically passed. This means that the House of Lords are unable to act as the judiciary in rejecting and checking unwanted bills.
The Constitutional Reform Act was intended to represent a separation from the traditional “fusion” model of the UK Constitution and towards a “more explicit separation of powers”, The Relations between the executive and judiciary would therefore be governed by the Act itself. Traditionally, the judiciary’s overall task was administration. However, it has developed which entailed a minority of the judiciary having political importance. One of the most significant developments which have been made is the introduction of the Human Rights Act which came into force in 2000. It also incorporated The European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
Another reason why most proposed amendments fail to pass is the difficulties posed by the very complex amendment process. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. However the first way is very difficult to achieve and there have been many amendments which have been or currently are very close to being passed, e.g. the Child labour Amendment.
Many people would define an effective government by its abilities to be representative of the whole electing body, as compared to corporate or lobbying firms, along with the ability to make sure it functions effectively with all three of the branches fulfilling their roles in terms of checks and balances, without the occurrence of gridlocks. The origins of the constitution had at first been brought about during the Philadelphia convention, in the fear of the tyranny of the majority. However the reliability of the government being effective in current times, with the original constitution can be questioned, and compared with governments who use an un-codified constitution, such as UK, as there are both sides to the question of the constitution acting as a barrier to effective government. One of the negative features of the constitution which prevents from an effective government would be the checks and balances which are often too strong and can lead to the occurrence of gridlock. Gridlock occurs when the branches of government scrutinise each other’s action to such a point where neither can pass any form of legislation, and the government therefore becomes less able to perform its duties, therefore leading to a less effective government.
It is not thought that adherence to original meaning is one alternative among many, a choice that might be made or that might not. (Whittington, 2008). It is dangerous to leave to the judges the authority to interpret the constitution in a way that cannot be free of subjectivity. Indeed, if the judge has his sole conscious to indicate the objective interpretation of a piece of original law, America will be subjugated under a regimen of contradictory interpretations. “Judges should not feel free to pour their own political values and ideals into the constitution” ( Whittington,2008, p162).
The New World Times How will the constitution affect the presidential elections? In terms of this, the constitution will affect the elections because the federalists and the anti-federalists will oppose to vote for the right representative but because that the representative comes from that class…… the classes will only vote for their representative. This attempt will trouble the nation with election issues and pretty soon… the constitution will be abandoned set America for a monarchy. Editor’s opinion In my opinion the U.S constitution provided more detailed political laws that was able to help out the economy itself to prevent form having a dictatorship. However the constitution first needed to be discussed before being passed out
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.
If I lived back in that time, and having just finished the war with Britain where we finally got our independence, I would remind people all the issues we had. Britain was trying to tell us what we needed to do and how we needed to do things without really knowing what our problems were here. How is this new Constitution which gives a lot of power to the national government different from having Britain tell us what we needed to do. I would think if I lived back then I would say we are going from one wrong to another and I would oppose the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution.
This was to help keep someone from making the democracy into a monarchy for one example. Another would be that the Articles of Confederation allowed for a strong legislature for the states, but the executive branch was basically nonexistent or was without enough power to override laws that would be against basic human rights.
This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court. The fact that the courts are charged with determining what the law means does not suggest that they will be justified in substituting their will for that of