It can be easily changed, as laws can be changed/introduced without the need for entrenchment as the British constitution is un-codified. Another benefit of this legal flexibility is that it can easily adapt to changing circumstances within parliament such as referendum use and the changing role of the House of Lords. Whereas if it was codified, constitutional changes would be very difficult and time consuming. It can also respond quickly to a changing political climate. After the 9/11 attacks on the world trade centre in 2001, the threat of international terrorism has become significantly reduced.
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
How effectively does the judiciary protect civil liberties in the UK? The UK judiciary has several methods at its disposal that provide an effective protection of civil liberties in the UK. However, in practice there are several shortcomings that make these protections weak in the face of Parliamentary pressure, which will be demonstrated in this essay. In terms of rights protections, perhaps the most important development in the protection of rights in the UK has been the installation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. This act effectively has provided a concrete document that outlines the rights of citizens.
Assess the strenghts of the British constitution?- Marked essay with teacher feedback (25 Marks) 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 flexibility and adaptability, conservative pragmatism, executive power and domination and many more which will be further spoken about below. 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. A strength of Britain having an uncodified constitution is that its unentrenched nature is flexible and adaptable therefore easy to amend, 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.
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.
The most convincing argument for this case is the adaptability built into the constitution through ambiguous language and elastic clauses. The amendment process though strict does allow for the constitution to be changed to better fit contemporary circumstances, and the 18th and 21st amendments considering prohibition have shown that even the amendment process is able to change and repair ill considered amendments. The elastic clause, in article 1 of the constitution also allows for any laws to be passed as long as they are necessary and proper in executing the will of the constitution, it was this that allowed Bush junior to pass the patriot act and other anti terrorism legislation in the wake of 9/11. Also Judicial review, 1st established in the 1803 Marbury vs Madison case has allowed case law to be implemented to alter the inflection of the constitution, without changing the actual words, for example the cruel and unusual punishments phrase in the 8th amendment has been interpreted in some states to to forbid the death penalty. This difference between the state's government and the federal government has also allowed for the constitution to keep up to date by allowing a strong prosperous nation in which states could craft their own legislation which can be modern and specific, such as the way that Massachusetts was the first state to allow gay
‘Critically assess the claim that free will and determinism are compatible’ The theodicean issue concerning free will, beside being offered as a solution in the film, ‘Time Bandits’ dates back at least as far as Democrates, however hard determinism is a far more modern invention by some six centuries, when Rene Descartes first suggested that everything is mechanistic, and that (although he is not known to have used these words) the doctrine of cause and effect happens because of tight coupling. When answering the question, it is important to consider the two main types of determinism: hard determinism and soft determinism. Supporters of hard determinism, such as Spinoza, state that no actions (or indeed occurrences for that matter) are free, because any action necessarily has antecedents, which implies that the action happened as a result of mechanical laws and not as a result of free will. B. F. Skinner supported this view, denying the existence of intentional actions through his research in behavioural psychology. Soft determinism states that although some actions are not free, for instance I feel I have no choice but to come in to school every day, others are free, because the fact that an action has a cause does not imply that the action was axiomatically not free.
By giving you the divine rights that most people around the world lack to have you will see that we have a great advantage to express ourselves in many different ways. The constitution and the bill of rights are there to protect everyone equally as individuals, as a minority of one. The people’s rights are mostly contained in the first Amendment of the constitution.
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.
Moreover, a flexible constitution is particularly best adapted to the needs of a progressive State since it ensures legal and orderly growth. As it easily meets new emergencies, a flexible constitution either minimizes or prevents revolutions by meeting them half way. In the life of every man, as also in the life of every nation, there are occasions when inelasticity proves not only harmful, but even dangerous. The Constitution of the United States of America demands that Presidential election must be held after every four years, whether there is peace or war. If Roosevelt had been defeated by Dewey, it would have meant a new policy by the new government, though the primary object of Dewey, too, was sure to have been as that of Roosevelt, to win the war.