The Constitutional Reform Act was intended to represent a separation from the traditional “fusion” model of the UK Constitution and towards a “more explicit separation of powers”, The Relations between the executive and judiciary would therefore be governed by the Act itself. Traditionally, the judiciary’s overall task was administration. However, it has developed which entailed a minority of the judiciary having political importance. One of the most significant developments which have been made is the introduction of the Human Rights Act which came into force in 2000. It also incorporated The European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
Another reason why most proposed amendments fail to pass is the difficulties posed by the very complex amendment process. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. However the first way is very difficult to achieve and there have been many amendments which have been or currently are very close to being passed, e.g. the Child labour Amendment.
Many people would define an effective government by its abilities to be representative of the whole electing body, as compared to corporate or lobbying firms, along with the ability to make sure it functions effectively with all three of the branches fulfilling their roles in terms of checks and balances, without the occurrence of gridlocks. The origins of the constitution had at first been brought about during the Philadelphia convention, in the fear of the tyranny of the majority. However the reliability of the government being effective in current times, with the original constitution can be questioned, and compared with governments who use an un-codified constitution, such as UK, as there are both sides to the question of the constitution acting as a barrier to effective government. One of the negative features of the constitution which prevents from an effective government would be the checks and balances which are often too strong and can lead to the occurrence of gridlock. Gridlock occurs when the branches of government scrutinise each other’s action to such a point where neither can pass any form of legislation, and the government therefore becomes less able to perform its duties, therefore leading to a less effective government.
If I lived back in that time, and having just finished the war with Britain where we finally got our independence, I would remind people all the issues we had. Britain was trying to tell us what we needed to do and how we needed to do things without really knowing what our problems were here. How is this new Constitution which gives a lot of power to the national government different from having Britain tell us what we needed to do. I would think if I lived back then I would say we are going from one wrong to another and I would oppose the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution.
For instance, in Jefferson’s letter to Gideon Granger (D1) he exhibits his feelings and ideas of how the constitution’s framework should be set and even his own interpretation of the constitution regarding his Democratic-Republican mind set; he also displays his ideas in how he opposes the Federalists. Jefferson as well suspects that a Federalists’ perspective would deteriorate the governments and fuse them into one government which will in effect begin a Monarchy, when he states, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government” (D1). Jefferson also felt that the states should have a feeble central government that is instead ruled internally by individual states and having central government control but only foreign affairs. These ideas however, were of course an effect of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican mentality. Consequently, once Jefferson was elected into the presidency, his views came into play when he began to take action by cutting taxes, reducing the army and eliminating federalist power in
We are not measured for sex, race, or where we come from. At least that’s how it was supposed to be but in my opinion, it is a lie. It doesn’t apply for those who are homosexuals, those who are labeled, when they are really like me and you with a different type of view. I think if I was a colonist back then I would not support the declaration of independence. I would not go against it but just like the republicans and radicals with the constitution, I would try to do something to better it.
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’.
120). The “Living Constitution” is a Progressive theory that has developed to: one take the liberties and power of the government away from the citizenry and two to give more power to the government to enforce the beliefs of a minority or “elite” few. This theory also believes that the federal government should define the scope of practice of the federal government, instead of the Constitution and especially the citizens of the United States defining the federal government’s scope. The “Living Constitution” viewpoint states that the Constitution is open for interpretation and can mean multiple things for different situations which are usually at the expense of the rights of the citizens of the states. The Progressives are able to advance this viewpoint through the misuse of the Judicial Branch of
On his view, the rights of the states were not nearly as important as national power and unity. Hamilton said, “Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government” (Hamilton). Hamilton was saying in this quote that even though the country is neutral and not involve on any global issue they should have a strong government to stabilize them. However, according to Jefferson, there shouldn’t be a strong national government or ruled by the riches. He believed less power of the national government and use the strict interpretation of the constitution.
New Labour govern with a pragmatic stance, concentrating on making practical decisions that influence the UK, as oppose to Old Labour who were ideological, and looked at the best ways in which to manage society and react to current events. A famous quote, used by ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1997 was “We were elected as New Labour, and we will govern as New Labour”. This signified the change in how the Labour Party acted. As a party formed for the working class people of Britain, Old Labour actively sough to attract the lower skilled, lower income members of society. The party designed and implemented its policies so that they would please and benefit the working class of Britain.