Should Britain adopt a codified constitution? Should the UK have a codified constitution? A constitution is a set of rules that establishes how political power should be distributed, the relationship between political institutions, the limits to government, the rights of citizens and how the constitution can be changed. In the UK, we have an uncodified constitution; this means that it is not written down on one single document. However, recently more and more people have become in favour of codifying the constitution.
Therefore Parliament sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution. A Constitution is a set of rules and processes describing the political institutions of a state, the sharing of power among intuitions, the rights of citizens and the limits to the powers of the state. The UK Constitution has never been written in document thus it is known as uncodified or “unwritten constitution.” As it doesn’t written in a single document it is more flexible but vulnerable. The constitution has been drawn from legislation, treaties, judicial precedents, convention and numerous other sources. The Unwritten constitutions principal source is statue law, I.e., laws passed by the UK parliament but also includes; Acts of Parliament/Statutes, Conventions, Common Law, European Treaties, Works of authority and Traditions.
Constitutional construction is one mechanism by which constitutional meaning is elaborated. It works alongside constitutional interpretation to elaborate the existing constitutional order. The process of constitutional construction is concerned with fleshing out constitutional principles, practices and rules that are not visible on the face of the constitutional text and that are not readily implicit in the terms of the constitution. We can imagine a continuum of actions that political actors can take under a Constitution, ranging from policymaking to revolution. At one end of the continuum, political actors can take constitutional forms as a given and make policy decisions under it, filling government offices and exercising government power in (constitutionally) noncontroversial ways.
However, UK has written constitution and unwritten constitution , will it affect the liberty and democracy. Many countries has written constitution to help in rule the country. However, UK doesn’t have a single qualified text that label as their constitution. It has various sources that make up the British Constitution. 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.
To what extent is the UK Constitution no longer fit for purpose? The UK Constitution is not codified as it is in many countries. In the UK, we do not have a single codified and entrenched document to represent the UK position, but we have a general set of constitutional rules. A constitution is a set of principles that establishes the distribution of power in a political system, and defines the relationship between political institution and the limits of the government jurisdiction and the rights of citizens. Supporters would suggest that the constitution is fit for purpose.
INTRODUCTION – A constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or organization is governed. The purpose of a constitution is to explain how sovereign power is distributed amongst the government and people as well as to delegated bodies. There are numerous arguments for a codified constitution being introduced in the UK such as that it would offer a better protection of rights for the people and prevent an over mighty government. Calls for constitutional reform were particularly prominent in Blair's first term of government, as this was promised in the Labour Party manifesto of 1997. Arguments against adopting a codified constitution such as that it could lead to judicial tyranny are outweighed by arguments for it.
Politics has many topical undertones such as religion, class, race and gender. National decisions are usually made in Politics through deliberation and elections. Within a political government there are three branches which consist of the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. The legislature is a lawmaking body who create and amend laws, the Judiciary is a system of courts who have the position to enforce law by abiding by a written or unwritten constitution and the Executive is the government who not only hold authority and power but deal with the state’s daily affairs and administration of functions consistently. Without government there would be no Politics as it essentially leads from the approach of government.
Discuss the extent to which judges do create and develop the law. Numerous different judges have different views on to what extent judges have creativity within the legal system, such as Lord Simons who believed he judges job is to administer justice according to legislation made my parliament and in common law old principles should be applied to new circumstances, therefore his view is that judges should not be creative, as it isn’t there job. On the contrary Lord Radcliffe believed that judges do create law, however felt it should be on the quiet, so the public don’t lose respect for the judiciary and legal system. Finally Lord Devlin opposed the overruling of the supreme court, as all lower courts are bound to it and that it would turn them into “undisguised legislators” which is the job of parliament, not of the judiciary. The traditional view of the law making process is that parliament makes the law though acts of parliament, as they are democratically elected to make law, whereas judges aren’t so they merely apply it in court to the cases presented to them.
Montesquieu in his book ‘‘The Spirit of the Laws’’ in one of the chapters entitled ‘‘On The Constitution of England’’ expressed himself clearly on this doctrine ‘‘when legislative power is united with executive power in a single body of the magistracy, there is no liberty...nor there is liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative power and from executive power... all would be lost if the same man or the same body of...people exercised these three powers...making the laws...executing and that of judging...’’. The true essence of separation of powers is to ensure that the three branches of government are independent and prevent the abuse of power. The contemporary view of the separation of power however is that there should be interplay between each institution of the state as a complete separation of the institutions could result in legal and constitutional deadlock. Rather than have a pure system of separation of powers, there should be checks and balances to ensure that no institution encroaches significantly on the function of the other. IMPACT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM ACT 2005 Before considering the impact of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 on the issue of separation of powers in Britain, it is not only imperative but also pertinent to ask whether there is a complete separation of powers in the British system and the answer is ‘NO’.
Instead, it is mostly unwritten, and usually scattered amongst many different sources. As such, there is a lack of an authoritative or definitive text to define the framework on the manner the country is run. • It is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, in the sense that the Constitution has simply developed in accordance to the needs as perceived at that time by the society e.g. women’s right to vote. • Structure of the legislature is bicameral ie split into two houses, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.