The Constitution Is Not Unwriten It Is Written but Uncodified.Give Your Aruments for and Against This Statement……

1452 Words6 Pages
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. However although a codified constitution may not beneficial a bill of rights would be as it would offer the protection of citizens rights, but could be written so that it wouldn’t become outdated. BODY – Codified and uncodified constitutions: A country’s constitution is often defined as being either codified or uncodified which can be said simply as written or unwritten (although no constitution is fully unwritten or written so this is not an all encompassing definition). Codified constitutions have three key features, chiefly that the document is authoritative, in that it is the highest law of the land and binds all political institutions. Another key characteristic is that it is entrenched as it is difficult to amend or abolish; there have been 27 amendments to the US constitution in over 200 years (mainly because it is extremely difficult to get both houses and the majority of states to agree on a bill).This type of constitution could therefore be described as being rigid. Codified
Open Document