It can be argued that the UK constitution is too flexible. The lack of clearly defined roles (separation of powers) means that theoretically an electoral dictatorship could occur. For example in 1997 Tony Blaire’s government passed a series of laws without any difficulty. Devolution, human rights act and freedom of information were all acts set by the priminister and his cabinet (the executive) which went relatively unchecked by the opposition (legislative). This demonstrates how a lack of separation of powers/checks and balances would only come about from and uncodified/flexible constitution.
Sovereignty is in essence ultimate and unchallengeable power, the location of sovereignty in the UK in recent years has changed from one single power and devolved into many unions, treaties and nations within the UK and EU. Parliament is the only body that can make law in the UK. No other authority can overrule or change the laws which the parliament has made. This, then gives the statute law more power and priority over the other sources of the constitutions. This then allows the parliament to change or repeal any law it wants and is also not bounded by the laws made by the previous parliaments.
If the constitution was codified, it would become entrenched, meaning that for it to be changed, a long arduous process would have to be taken. The current constitution can easily be changed by every government that comes into power, no matter how good or bad the last one was, allowing government to rule comfortably. If the constitution was codified, then a general consensus across all parties would have to be made so that no matter who is in power, the constitution still applies, the way politics works in the UK however, this would probably never happen as each party is very different to the other, and a codified constitution would only limit the abilities of each government. There is a common belief that the UK constitution is organic, that it grows with the nation, and should be able to freely grow like this, for our country to be truly democratic, if the constitution was codified then it would be locked down, and not be able to work as effectively in the future. The UK is one of the only big
He argued that social development studies showed changes in their social behaviors and their interactions once in their new environment. Thus, he concluded that the new society was uniquely America. He has a very valid argument, but I believe he could have maintained the strength of his argument while also including the fact that the American people coming from British roots, the Puritans, the Royalist elites, the North Midlanders of England and the North British and Irish were still unique as a sub-culture melded together by the choice for religious and economic freedom. The pursuit to own land and accumulate wealth, and not be under the rule of the crown was first and foremost in the early colonists minds. Fisher rests his entire point of view based on the roots of the four British folkways that separated the settlers in America.
European immigrants set out to British North America for either one or both of two very different reasons, the escape of religious persecution or the pursuit of improved economic opportunity. The impetus for each settler’s journey had a unique effect on the development of the new colonies socially, economically and politically. Ultimately, these combined factors determined the church state paradigm established in each of the colonies. The colonial history behind the long debated issue of separation of church and state provides a foundation for better understanding American politics today. The religious persecution settlers experienced in their homelands and, for some, again upon arrival in British North America, served to shape the cultural landscape.
Devolution in Scotland was a result of the 1997 Referendum, where the Scottish people voted in favour of a devolved Scottish Parliament. It was justified on the basis that it would make government more responsive to the wishes of the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has primary legislative powers, allowing it to pass almost any law they wish. However, some policy areas remain as ‘reserved’ powers for the UK Government, including foreign policy and national security issues. Devolution has always been a widely debated topic, with many arguments both for and against.
According to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament is the only body that can make law for the UK. No other body can overrule or change the laws which Parliament has made. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty however cannot be found in statute law, it is part of another source of the constitution, common law. The reason it is not part of statute law is that Parliament can pass, change, or repeal any law it likes and is not bound by laws of previous Parliaments. Therefore if parliamentary sovereignty was an Act of Parliament it would be possible for Parliament to repeal it and destroy the principle.
Only seven states ratified the 27th Amendment in the 18th century, and after the seventh did so, it took the eighth state almost 81 years to ratify it, and another 105 years in addition for the ninth state. Only due to one student, Gregory Watson of the University of Texas at Austin, and his valiant letter-writing campaign, did this amendment even get resurfaced attention, let alone a serious look at ratification. Over 202 years after its proposition, the amendment became a part of the United States Constitution. Even with this amendment in place, it does not address the larger issue of congressional pay itself. While the prohibition of immediate pay raises does help the problem on a smaller level, it does not do
This is also supports the idea that it was not revolutionary because William did not immediately assume Kingship, and instead called an assembly and a Parliament to sort out lawfully who should be King or not. In the case of a revolution, the actions of those taking over are usually much more decisive and radical. Another important factor that does not support the Glorious Revolution view is the fact little changed after it took place. A monarch still reigned and the Declaration of Rights that were read before William and Mary accepted the throne in February 1689, still kept the monarch’s prerogative rights and there was no repeal of the 1661 Militia Act that Parliament found particularly vexing. A revolution usually means a complete change that replaces the old order with a new order.
I wouldn’t say they have not used the Constitution at all but I do believe they have neglected to use it to their benefit. The Constitution is a working document and has the ability to be changed and approved in all fairness. If one or more states come up with an amendment and two thirds of the state legislatures agree on the amendment it can be deliberated as a legitimate agreement, but it three fourths state legislatures agree on the amendment, the constitution can be revised. According to Jeffery (2013), an amendment cannot be approved until it is voted on by the three fourths of the state legislatures. If the states can amend the constitution they can increase their