In legal terms, this can be considered relatively accurate. The mechanics of the government is conditioned by usages or practices which ensure the smoothness of operations. Some of these usages affect the behaviour of principal organs of the state and thus have constitutional significance. These can be called “conventions of the constitution.” Dicey describes conventions as maxims or practices which, ‘though they regulate the ordinary conduct of the Crown, of Ministers, and of other persons under the constitution, are not in strictness laws at all’. According to Marshall and Moodie, conventions are ‘rules of constitutional behaviour’ which can be ‘considered binding by and upon those who operate the constitution’ but are not ‘enforced by the… courts’.
Among them are Magna Carta 1215, The Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Settlement 1700, Threat of United of Scotland 1706, The Human Rights Act 1998, The Europeon Communities Act 1972, etc… Among the characteristic of British Constitution are unitary, democratic, monarchy, parliamentary supremacy and so on. The reason why UK only have partial written constitution is due to the politician believe UK is strong enough because UK does not have written constitution in thousands years ago but it still operates well, indeed. However in modern world, some philosopher argued that UK should have written constitution . Whether or not for UK constitution to be codified, the answer may vague because it contains lot of advantages and disadvantages where UK has written constitution and unwritten Constitution. Next, we will discuss about the advantages if UK agree to codify the British Constitution.
In the civil law there’s a division of powers, where the legislator, legislates and the courts (judges) apply the law. The civil law lawyers start from legal codes contained in the legislation, and by the process of supposition, they make decisions concerning the actual case, where it is more inflexible because in the non-existence of a specific code for particular situation, the judges cannot produce new rules and consequently this can precede to injustice. Alternatively, in common law the main duty of the courts is to create the law, judges have somewhat greater flexibility to create an appropriate remedy (legal principle to cover wide range of areas, even those not specifically provided in written law) at the conclusion of the case. The lawyers in common law, compare the actual case with similar legal disputes that have been dealt in previously decided circumstances, and from this precedents they need to follow the doctrine of stare decisis. Common law can respond to cases, situations and facts that were not foreseen by legislators.
Uncodified constitutions tend not to be entrenched therefore short term amendments can be made which might have negative impacts on citizens. However this can be seen as positive because overtime society changes, therefore some laws may need to be changed to adapt to the current changes in society, like it was easy to enforce anti-terrorist laws whereas that would have been difficult it is was an entrenched constitution. A constitution is a system of rules which describes the structure and powers of the government, the relationship between different parts of government and the relationship between government and citizens. It can further be separated into codified and uncodified. The UK constitution is quite unusual for a westernised democracy.
Equity is known as ‘gloss on common law’ as it is not a complete set of rules it offers judges a more fair and equitable remedy to dispute, either way judges can decide whether to use an equitable remedy or not. These laws were developed by judges, but can be identified as a separate body of laws from the common law. In order to create some certainty within the system, equitable maxims were created to outline what would be known as fair and unfair. These equitable maxims were known as guidelines. If a person was willing to go to the equity court, with these maxims you could predict the outcome of their case on whether they had a good chance of getting justice in the equity court or not, such as one maxim is ‘He who comes to equity must come with clean hands’ with this you know if you are partly as guilty as the party you will not be entitled to anything, you need to be innocent to
These experts hold a lot of power in the courtroom because they can give conclusions based on certain facts, and if a jury believes them, the experts essentially replace the jury in the decision-making process (Justice Learned Hand). Judges need to make sure that each of these experts are qualified enough to give an opinion that would not taint the jury’s opinion in a wrongful way. However, while making a decision on which experts are allowed, judges must maintain a careful balance between preventing bias and junk
This essay plans to illustrate the pros and cons of a codified constitution and answers the original question; should Britain adopt a codified constitution? The main argument against a written constitution is that Britain has survived very well without one and that the strength of an unwritten constitution is its ability to evolve according to circumstances because it is not set in stone. The Conservatives would say that “if it aint broke, don’t fix it” As well as being flexible, the current system also has a number of informal checks and balances built into it, mostly based on convention, so that there is a degree of balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, which suggests a written constitution would be unnecessary. An example might be the
Roles and Functions of Law Law/ 421 Roles and Functions of Law Introduction For a society to function and operate properly several key variables must exist. The need for law and regulation is the most important of these variables. Laws act as the binding agent within a society, holding it together and providing structure. Many different theories and definitions of law exist. “A generally accepted generic definition of the law is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having legal binding force.” (Melvin, 2011).
2014/10/20 Gyeongmin LEE Is Parliamentary sovereignty a reality, or a myth? Discuss. Parliamentary Sovereignty can both be seen as a reality or to some as a myth. Parliamentary Sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, it is the meaning of creating or removing any laws. Therefore Parliament sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
It is not a case of (sometimes criticised, sometimes admired) dynamic interpretation since the judgment did not even attempt to reason out the fine distinctions and nuances concerning “fair dealing”, “fair use” and “enumerated exceptions”. The judgment, in fact, went beyond the realms of extant jurisprudential understanding without even discussing them especially when precedents are binding in a common law jurisdiction like India. Of course, the judiciary in India is free to take an altogether different path in jurisprudence and interpretation. But it should be mandatorily based on reason. Reason pervades the Indian polity, thanks to Constitutionalism and Rule of Law.