Parliament can make laws on any matter due to Dicey in ‘Law of the Constitution (1885).’ He said that ‘in theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign'. He states a number of reasons as to how this is possible. Firstly Dicey points out that Parliament can pass laws on any subject without legal restriction therefore it is sovereign. This principle is a result of the election of the Members of Parliament (MPs), by the electorate which gives them authority to represent and pass legislation on their behalf.
The constitution does not grant congress oversight responsibility but it does give congress the powers to make laws so oversight of congress has become an implied power. It is congresses' role to make law and see how it is working after it has passed through the houses and therefore they have given themselves a number of significant powers in order to carry this out. Subpoena documents, the illegality of lying to congress, and powers of impeachment are all examples of this. However the effectiveness of oversight is often called into question with some commentators. Most of congresses oversight comes from congressional committees as unlike in Britain congress cannot hold question time as the executive is not present in congress so it is only in committees that members of congress can directly question the executive.
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.
The USA also has a complex legal system, having both national and state courts. Federalism in this sense thus leads to confusion, as what is legal in one state may be illegal in another, making it sometimes difficult for the central government and the people to distinguish between state laws and federal laws. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes writes “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is.” The federal-state relationship is a continual source of conflict and controversy, and in these times the Supreme Court handles the issues. However, the federal constitution and the state constitution are open to individual interpretation. Federalism thus allows the Supreme Court to dictate the outcome, and without federalism, there may
So, why UK doesn't have a codified constitution? There are many reasons for that. Britain’s lack of a ‘written’ constitution can be explained by its history. In other countries, many of which have experienced revolution or regime change, it has been necessary to start from scratch or begin from first principles, constructing new state institutions and defining in detail their relations with each other and their citizens. America has got it's constitution codified in the 18th century after getting its independence.
It provides one control policy for the entire nation unlike the United States, which uses a federal government system, where there is one federal government for the nation, but each state has its own government as well to show sovereignty of the states. In a unitary government, there is not much distribution of powers to any separate local governments as the entire nation is called to follow one rule under one main government. The central government has the task of managing the national-level issues, which can include foreign policies, economy, as well as national defense. (Russel) However minuscule differences do lie where France carries administrative subdivisions. (Evans) There are subdivisions that portray numerous legal functions, as the main central government is not allowed to interrupt in their operations.
Social contract may be is a form of constitution that obey by citizen and enforced by government. Constitution control the allocation in separation of powers,in purpose, to make a check and balance and prevent abuse of power. However, UK has written and unwritten constitution, will it affect the liberty and democracy? Many countries has written constitution but except for UK, Israel and new Zealand. UK has written constitution but UK only have partial written constitution,why?
Professor KC Wheare defines the constitution of a state as: “… the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government.” The evolving nature of the UK constitution implies that it is somewhat straightforward for the government to alter the constitution and adapt it to ever changing times. The constitution of the UK is extremely distinct, as it is not set out in a specific document, which establishes the rules of the state, therefore it is often deemed uncodified. The fact that the full UK constitution cannot be found in one specific document, leads many to argue the flexibility and therefore, instability, of the UK constitution, as it is susceptible to change over time. In comparison, the constitution of the United States is codified and present in an easily obtainable document. In order to implement change in the US constitution, therefore, there is a much stricter protocol to follow.
Explain the principle of the separation of powers found in the US Constitution. The separation of powers is the main underlying principle of the US Constitution whereby political power is distributed amongst the three branches of government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The branches act both independently and interdependently. The idea was originally of French political thinker Baron de Montesquieu, it was then incorporated by the Founding Fathers into the 1787 codified document. The principle was adopted by the Founding Fathers due to their fear of totalitarianism.
This changed the way power was distributed within the government, due to the Constitution. Great Brittain has an unwritten constitution unlike the U.S.A. Instead Britain's laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention and more recently E.U law. This means that the British constitution has no single document, which states principles and rules of a state. The Constitution is one document explaining all of the principles and rules of the government, and how power is separated in the goevernment.