Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate. Moreover, that is not written in The Constitution is the fact that Washington appointed cabinet members to help him run the
‘The rules which allocate and control governmental power in the United Kingdom are so diverse and uncertain that the existence of such a thing as the “constitution of the United Kingdom” must be open to doubt.’ Discuss. This essay will consider the question as to whether the existence of the United Kingdom’s constitution can be said to be ‘in doubt’ as a result of the ‘diverse and uncertain’ nature of the ‘rules that allocate and control governmental power’. It will consider what is meant by the term ‘Constitution’ and how, if at all, the UK’s set of Laws and Conventions resemble this. Following on from this, it will discuss whether or not the existence of the UK’s constitution is clear or whether it is open to doubt as a result of its unwritten nature as well as the spread of powers across various decision making bodies such as devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. What defines a Constitution?
This is a relatively new theory of prime ministerial power (and, indeed, of power in general) developed by Michael Foley in his important work, ‘The Rise of the British Presidency’ in 1993. It suggests that political systems are increasingly led by leaders who consider themselves to be distinctly separate from the rest of the government. This separateness gives rise to the term spatial. In it he looks at leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Above all, he suggests these leaders deliberately make themselves into outsiders within government.
Engl Composition and Readin Summary Federalist #51 James Madison stated “a will in the community independent of the majority, that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens, as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.” My paper will attempt to explain the preceding passage, and give a brief description of his involvement in drafting the Constitution. The will of the people is the inclination of the people mainly from the majority. For example many different favorable opportunists came to influence the will of the people from politics, new business e.g. the railroad in the civil war period, becoming a more powerful union as a state.. James Madison made laws that kept the will of the people from being influenced by those
By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship. The separation of powers is another way to ensure that checks and balances are being enforced and followed through. Caplan brings the issue of the debate of the meaning of separation of powers, “…the separation of powers means that each branch has exclusive control of matters in its domain or whether the Constitution generally gives Congress and the president overlapping, or blended, powers, all of which are quite extensive but none of which obviously serves as an absolute trump to the other,” (Caplan 21-2) So the presidential power used in the issue of foreign policy has been somewhat validated by this statement
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. Policymaking seeks to exercise constitutional authority, and its implications for elaborating or altering constitutional meaning are only implicit. At the other end of the spectrum, political actors can engage in revolution and replace the existing constitutional order or document wholesale in favour of a new one. The Articles of Confederation can be displaced in favour of the U.S. Constitution. Less extreme than revolution is creation, which adds new text to a pre-existing Constitution.
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.
Unlike other nations, UK does not have a written constitution (codified constitution), for example United State has a codified constitution which can always referred to their constitution, and therefore the sources like Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Right 1688 and etc are essentially important in UK. Constitutional Convention is a set of rules and practices that define the relationship and power of those institutions of state. Due to the absence of codified constitution in UK this leads to the difficulties in identifying the constitutional sources. There are two main sources made up of the UK constitution: legal sources (statues, judicial decision and prerogative power) are the principal source and the non legal sources (convention) which primarily relates to the political rules of behaviour. To investigate the proposition there is no clear definition what amounts to a convention.
Parliamentary sovereignty 'Although in theory Parliament is sovereign, the problematic reality is that British constitutional arrangements ensure that true power lies with the Executive.' Part A: Many countries such as the United States have a written constitution but Britain does not, however 'it must have something which is at the heart of its constitutional arrangements'[1] and this need is fulfilled by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The traditional and most often applied definition of parliamentary sovereignty is that of Dicey, who stated, 'the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament'[2]. From this definition, three fundamental principles can be derived; the first is that Parliament can make or unmake any law. An example of this principle in practice; The Septennial Act 1715 was passed to extend the life of Parliament from three to seven years out of fear of the effects of an election.
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.