The Constitution is one document explaining all of the principles and rules of the government, and how power is separated in the goevernment. This key feature changes the structure of power of the government form that of Brittains. In conlusion, the constitution changed the structure of power of the government. This is by the separation of power within the government. Lastly, by being a "written"
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
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.
The constitution guarded against tyranny by providing federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states vs. small states. The first guard against tyranny was federalism which means a compound government made up of a central or state government. Powers given to the central government were to regulate trade, conduct foreign relations, provide an army and navy, declare war, print and coin money, set up post offices, and to make
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 parliament would have been able to muster volunteers, but there was no money to equip them with weapons, and the only way that the Parliament would have been able to make money, would be by introducing taxes. However, the Parliament simply couldn’t just create money from taxes as everyone refused to pay the taxes. The payment of taxes could have been enforced, but there was no army to do the enforcement. There were no consequences to the people of the German Empire if they disobeyed the decisions of the Frankfurt Parliament, so decisions were not followed by the people. This was not surprising, as there was no previous history of a democracy in Germany before the Frankfurt Parliament, therefore there was not much support from the ordinary people for the new concept.
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
“A monarchy [...] is [strictly] a state ruled by a single absolute hereditary ruler.” (Bogdanor1), and since Richard inherited the throne from his father Edward III he seems to fit the bill. This divine right theory is enough, in Richards eyes his legitimacy as king is irrevocable. “Not all the water in the rough rude sea/ can wash the balm from an anointed king/ the breath of worldly men cannot depose/ the deputy elected by the Lord” (R.II.3.2-50-3). So much does Richard believe this theory that he leaves himself defenceless against Bolingbroke’s assault upon him. He believes that the earth itself will “prove armed solder’s, ere her native king” (R.II.3.2-25).
Constitution is the body of doctrines and practices that form the fundamental organizing principle of a political state. It is the backbone of every state's government but United Kingdom begs to differ. It is quite unusual and amazing at the same time that UK has no single legal binding document to set out the fundamental laws of how the state will be governed. UK has proved there is no need for a codified constitution for a country to be run - some people even say UK has one of the most successful constitutions in the world so being a stable country for long does not really have anything to do with a codified constitution. So, why UK doesn't have a codified constitution?
Context of the above discussion, the following features of constitution are notable: * the choosing and removing of rulers; * the relationship between the different branches of govt. ; * the accountability of govt. ; * the rights of the citizen in relation to govt. ; So it can be said, constitution is a set of rules regulating the powers of a country’s government and the rights and duties of its citizens. Classifying Constitutions: * Written Constitution: A written constitution is a formal document defining the nature of the constitutional settlement, the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and governments in a codified form.