Codified vs. Uncodified

646 Words3 Pages
A constitution is a set of rules and/or principles on how to rule the country/state. It is said that the government should function within the constitutions framework. A codified constitution is one which all of it which is written down, an example of this is the one which the United States of America has which can be traced back to 1787; these types of constitutions are often entrenched stopping the constitution from regular change. Whereas an uncodified constitution is one which has parts which is unwritten. Elective dictatorship is a big issue when discussing uncodified constitutions. As there are no laws discussing the separation of the executive, legislature and judiciary powers in UK, an example of this was the Lord of Chancellors who sat within all three of the powers. America’s written constitution states there needs to be a separation of powers, meaning Obama the President has control over the sword however no control over the purse. This stops elitism and kleptocracy, whereas the UK doesn’t have any laws against this. However on the other hand a separation of powers undermines the idea of political sovereignty, because even though they have gain legitimate power, they are not able to run the country as they wish in terms of financial and economic policies. Flexibility is big problem also as an uncodified constitution allows the government to change the constitution and allows them to amend it to suit the needs of the party instead of the party in office working within the framework of the constitution, this can lead to a dictatorship also and pretty much removes the importance of a constitution, as it does not limit the government, whereas a codified constitution would most likely entrench these laws, meaning they would only be changed in an extraordinary circumstance . Regardless of this it could be argued that due to the ever evolving philosophy, it
Open Document