Judicial review was established through judicial interpretation in court case Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court justices interpreted that the Constitution gives them to right to review laws for constitutionality. Another informal method is incorporation of traditions, precedent and practice. Although not enumerated in the Constitution, a traditional practice may be widely used because of widely acceptance. Political faction is one example of amending the Constitution informally.
Common law differs because it’s a law that is created by judges is based on past court decisions. If statutory law conflicts with common law, statutory law will govern. Common law has not been made into a statute, in which case it would be a statutory law. 1-8 The judge's role is not to make the law but to uphold and apply the law. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
In this field Parliament makes and unmakes the law, the judge’s duty is to interpret and to apply the law, not to change it to meet the judge’s idea of what justice requires. Interpretation does, of course, imply in the interpreter a power of choice where differing constructions are possible. But our law requires the judges to choose the construction which in his judgment best meets the legislative purpose of the enactment. Judges obey Parliament. They are therefore there to interpret and apply a statute in the way that is intended by Parliament (This used to be true also in light of legislation incompatible with the European Convention of Human Right).
The Judicial Branch, has power that is, arguably, unregulated; power to overturn decisions by both the Executive and Legislative Branches. How does a judicial branch with unrestrained power fit into a democratic society? At first, it would seem impossible, yet judicial review may be single-handedly responsible for the preservation of democracy, and more importantly, liberty in America. In America’s democratic society, between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government, the Judicial Branch may sometimes be regarded as the branch of government with the least amount of power. A closer analysis of the United States’ system of government might reveal that the Judicial Branch holds a great deal of power.
However, this view is not entirely accurate and it is important that conventions are distinguished from habits and practices. Conventions are conceptually different from habits or practices in that these concepts do not prescribe or dictate what ought to happen but are merely descriptive of what in fact does happen. A Further definition of the purpose of conventions was given by Sir Ivor Jennings as: "The short explanation of the constitutional conventions is that they provide the flesh that clothes the dry bones of the law; they make the legal constitution work; they keep it in touch with the growth of ideas." To that end, it is a characteristic of constitutions in general that they contain some areas which are governed by conventions, rather than by strict law. However a simplistic characterization of constitutional conventions, moreover, for discussion purposes regarding this quandary, Fenwick's, H, definition seems to be
I agree with the originalism way of thinking because, the constitution is a basic document that needs to be used as a guideline. The ideas of the original meaning of the constitution have been regularly challenged in basic ways. This is the common ideas and example supported by living constitution adherent. The assertion that the constitution should be understood differently — that it is a living constitution that means something different today than it meant when it was adopted, for example — is now itself quite old . It is not thought that adherence to original meaning is one alternative among many, a choice that might be made or that might not.
This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects some or all individual rights. The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man. " According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law".  Upholding the rule of law can sometimes
Additionally, it exercises power independently to avoid conflicting with the other branches. The Judiciary, legislative and the executive are the commonly known branches of government and which the constitution ensures that they do not conflict but work together to unify the country (Amar 39). Checks and balances is another aspect that explains the view of a constitution as a living document. This idea ensures that there is no branch within the government acting as though it is the most supreme than others. In this case it provides protection to the minority from being exploited or manipulated by the majority.
UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.