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.
According to Hospers The essential ingredient in all freedom from coercion by other is one’s basic and inalienable right; it is fundamental to human survival and the development of the self (Machan 8). The most fundamental right is liberty. When an individual claims to have a right, it is another’s duty to respect that right (Machan 7). All claims to right cannot violate any other’s claims to rights. Negative rights to libertarians are essential.
‘Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough.’ Discuss. Constitutional reform is defined as a process where the fundamental nature of the system of government is changed. Since 1997, in particular under the Blair administration, many significant constitutional reforms have taken place. These reforms include the House of Lords reform, the reform of the judiciary, devolution of power in the UK and reforms regarding authority of the EU and the effects of these reforms upon the government vary. These constitutional reforms were proposed to improve democracy and the legitimacy of the governments in the UK however there has been a sense that these reforms have occurred with no real end goal therefore it makes it difficult to consider how effective they will be and if they would even make a difference due to the political framework of the UK.
In the UK we do not currently have a codified constitution nor have we ever had one however recently there have been cases put forward arguing for one suggesting it would be better for the nation. A constitution is a set of fundamental principles and rules according to which a state is governed, a codified constitution then takes this a step further by entrenching these rules making it harder and generally impossible for them to be changed. I feel that the UK does not actually need a codified constitution. One argument for the introduction of a codified constitution is that liberals argue that it would have a better safeguarding of human rights. With an un-codified constitution it means that it is very easy for aspects of it to be changed.
Gender Roles Essay America is a prideful nation. Even though we are not the most unitized nation or necessarily peaceful, we are always striving to become more exceptional. While there are still many instances that make America a troubling place to live, we must be reminded that nothing and nowhere is perfect. If we as a nation continue to make advancements and corrections, maybe one day everyone can be satisfied and the greatest “American Dream” will be achieved. Part of the advancements for American history is the acceptance of women and homosexuals into the military.
In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it. So it is a moral duty of every person to pursue his or her own interest. According to Ethical Egoism, there is only one ultimate principle of conduct, the principle of self-interest, and this principle sums up all of one’s natural duties and obligations. The only way, through which you can help others, according to Ethical Egoism, if it is in someone’s best interest to help others. Ethical Egoism talks only about the self-interest which is better for the person over long run.
Hate speech or other speeches that can cause harm to society’s welfare should not be disclosed under any circumstances. The topic of free speech has been one of the most controversial subjects. There will always be a conflict of interest unless we can reach an agreement to what extent should Freedom of Speech be allowed. To many, Freedom of Speech should be defended at all cost. They believe that Freedom of Speech is a part of our entire way of life.
American feminists found themselves divided on the issues of “equality” under the law. The definition or meaning of equality is an extremely difficult one, considering we live in a country full of diversity. Each group of these early feminists had their own view of necessary reform. The majority of feminists in the early 1900’s were considered to be “Difference” feminists. Their ideologies of social reform were more conservative and traditional in nature.
They wrote the restrictive forces of the Constitution on something far more predictable, the meaning of freedom. They understood that times would change, and that breakthroughs would come in many forms and on many levels. They therefore constructed the Constitution on one thing that they knew would not change, and that is human nature. So when people say that our constitution is not relevant at all because of its age, most of our rights are declared on it and still is followed today. Therefore, these are rights that can’t be taken away or unalienable, unalienable rights are rights that are unable to be alienated, given up, or transferred to someone else.
& Anderson, T., 2012). The limitation of such powers are that there must be a “compelling public need to regulate the conduct”, cannot infringe on the rights given to the people by the U.S. Constitution, and the language of the statute must clearly state what to do and not to do and the statute only condemns that particular act (Gardner, T. & Anderson, T., 2012). With that said a state must be careful in how it enacts a law; a law cannot be made a law just because someone does not like something. There are guidelines that must be met in order to make it a valid law and therein lies the limitations of police