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.
There many arguments for and against Britain having a codified constitution but one could say that they are too rigid for such a time of social change. Firstly, a codified constitution is limited government and would cut the government down to size. A codified would effectively end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. Both of which were shown in Blair and Thatcher’s Governments. It would also prevent the government to interfere with the constitution unfairly, as it would be protected by the existence of the higher law and the ‘supermajority’.
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.
This is a key issue because an activist court causes controversy through its ability to make decisions based on their political ideologies rather than the constitution. A second issue with the composition of the Supreme Court is that judges have a lifelong tenure after they have been appointed. This is controversial for two reasons; one because judges may get so old that they might not be able to make good judgements, two because it means the influence of the president of who elected them can be felt decades after they have left office. An example of this would be Justice Scalia who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. The world has changed immeasurably since then as has global politics.
Along with the rising number of back-bench rebellions and MPs defeating government’s proposals such as the Syria war in 2011, it can be seen that Parliament is performing well in making laws. However, although it has enormous power, Parliament is oftenly not expected to demonstrate that since by convention, government with the majority dominates and Parliament should support it. The whips system-a weekly outline sent to MPs with items underlined by 1,2 or 3 lines depending on how important the MPs attendance is- maintains party discipline and makes sure that rebellions are exceptional. Usually, MPs obey this system, therefore, Parliament in reality has not fulfilled this function. Parliament is believed to
I believe that this principal of the Constitution is very important because without this put into effect the senate of the president could become much too powerful and overthrow the whole government and we would be in a dictatorship or we would be in a direct democracy or some other form of government. The second principal of the Constitution that I believe that is the most important is that of Checks and Balances. This Principal makes it so that each branch of government has some different control over another type of government. This principal is important to society today and I believe that our government would fall apart without it, because without it the branches of government would be able to do what they wanted and they would easily be able to become much to powerful that’s why veto’s and overrule veto’s were created. Also that is why the President is able to appoint judges in the court and how the courts are able to declare other branches unconstitutional.
If powers are not outlined in the constitution, then it is up to the government (courts, judges, etc.) to decide what changes need to be made to fit the needs of society within these days. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that might oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps. The constitution was clearly meant to be interpreted and amended over time. For example, look at the Bill of Rights, and how generally various rights are stated.
A codified constitution is a written document that comprises the laws governing the state, the citizens’ rights against the state, identifies the political institutions with which power lies, and clearly defines the relationships between these institutions. It also contains guidelines to amending the constitution itself. Currently the UK has an uncodified constitution; which means that, unlike the US, constitutional principles cannot be entrenched - as both Parliamentary sovereignty, and the constitution’s organic nature, means it has evolved over time through statutes, Anglo-Saxon common law, convention and, more recently, E.U law – and will continue to do so. In the past, and unlike most other countries, Britain has not had an event, or a break in constitutional development, significant enough to require the introduction of a fully codified constitution; i.e. American came after the revolution, Germany’s after the abolishment of the fascist regime.
As it is impractical for all citizens to directly participate in running the government, the election process asserts the voting power of the people every time. It is, after all, a government made for the people, by the people and with the people. Studying the origin and history of our Constitution, I have come to recognize the value of the wealth of the years of experience and knowledge that went into the development of our government and its framing document. Over the last hundred years, our Constitution has undergone several changes. For me, this makes the Constitution far more precious and far more susceptible to manipulation and abuse.
They also have a number of hereditary peers (although there will no longer be any hereditary peers appointed. There have been many calls to make the House of Lords into an elected chamber as people say that the fact that it is unelected reduces the democracy of the United Kingdom and that it is unfair to have an unelected as the peers may not actually represent the views of the people. However, there are also many arguments as to why the House of Lords should remain unelected. The first and possibly most convincing argument is the fact that an elected second chamber would actually be completely pointless as it would be exactly the same and the House of Commons. This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons.