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’.
However on the other hand a separation of powers undermines the idea of political sovereignty, because even though they have gain legitimate power, they are not able to run the country as they wish in terms of financial and economic policies. Flexibility is big problem also as an uncodified constitution allows the government to change the constitution and allows them to amend it to suit the needs of the party instead of the party in office working within the framework of the constitution, this can lead to a dictatorship also and pretty much removes the importance of a constitution, as it does not limit the government, whereas a codified constitution would most likely entrench these laws, meaning they would only be changed in an extraordinary circumstance . Regardless of this it could be argued that due to the ever evolving philosophy, it
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never
For example the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 in immediate response the UK government made the possession of hand guns illegal this was possible because of the flexibility of the UK constitution. However in comparison in the USA there have been numerous incidents similar to Dunblane however because of the rigidity if the US constitution the possession of firearms is still legal. This is a clear example of the rigidity of a codified constitution preventing necessary laws being passed moreover it also shows it is difficult for entrenched constitutions to remain up to date. It is argued that the un-codified constitution is too flexible because Parliament and strong governments can change the constitution without constraints. For example the Blair government of 1997 who made a number of constitutional changes such as the removal of
Supporters would suggest that the constitution is fit for purpose. Recent activities that have taken place in the UK would suggest that the constitution is fit for purpose, for example the Scottish referendum. In this essay, I am going to argue that the UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose. The facts that our constitution is uncodified means that there is not much clarity as many individuals/citizens do not know their rights. This means that the government can override our rights, for example the case of the Belmarsh Prison Act 2001 and the Anti-Terrorism Act.
As your freedom of speech can be heavily hampered if you do not operate within the law; or you are voicing racist or offensive opinions, or your speech is threatening to “breach the peace” this is too say, what you are saying could be grossly offensive to some groups or individuals. The United Kingdom is definitely a democracy though (referring back to the definition) as in the UK we have free and fair (and regular) elections, and there are always 2 or more (3 main) parties to vote for. This prevents the UK from moving from a democracy into a dictatorship, as there are always other options to give your vote. The democracy also calls for competitive elections in which every adult is allowed to vote. There are further features of a Liberal Democracy which need to be held by the UK for it too fall into the category; Elected representatives and the government should be held to account by the people, something which is true within the UK as members of parliament are held accountable to the people, if they don’t do what they promise the people will not re-elect them, they are also held to account by legislature.
However, Parliament is sovereign and civil rights and liberties have been put suspended but only in the interests of law and order or national security. Unlike many other democracies, the government retains control over rights and freedoms of citizens. Democracy can lead to the abuse of power and there are fears that if those who govern are left to their own devices, they may claim substantial amounts of power and begin to abuse their position. By making governments accountable to the people, this can be prevented. Governments must submit themselves regularly to re-election and by guaranteeing that they are controlled by elected representatives, the people can feel safe from the corruption of power.
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.
Congress would start making laws that makes it more powerful, the President would use his power on the armed forces to gain influence and the supreme court would cut deals with congress by using its power to judge court cases (CEE, 2011) You might argue that no respectable politician would try unjustly gain more power, but this is not true; the politicians would easily justify this and since there would be no system in place to stop them they wouldn't be accountable. Even if only one part of government tried to give themselves more power there would be chaos. The other parts of government would be constantly in struggle to prevent the rightful powers from being infringed upon. This struggle would prevent the government from functioning properly. One law in the system of checks and balances is the law that allows citizens to challenge any law that they feel is unjust.