There are several arguments arguing against the above statement and they will be explored later on in this essay. The flexibility of the constitution can be argued in two ways. It can be seen as a positive as it allows new laws to be passed much easier and it doesn’t limit the government to what they can and can’t do, this is because its quite flexible due to its vagueness. The constitution allows it to be amended to keep up with society’s changes. For example, in the USA the right to own a firearm is entrenched in the Second Amendment and therefore is has been so much harder for those attempting to put restrictions on the ownership of guns.
Pressure groups are mostly seen to be a major part of how democracy functions in the UK, however whether they undermine democracy is a question that has always been raised. They are mostly seen as to help democracy rather than hinder it however, as they help to represent the opinions and needs of minorities, as well as give an extra platform for participation. One of the ways in which pressure groups can undermine democracy is that they concentrate power,meaning some groups are able to influence the government more than others. These types of groups are ones such as the BMA and BDA, wealthy insider groups which a close and established relationship with the government and have direct access to decision makers, allowing them to influence policies
When the Labour government implemented these laws they protected traditional parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike Germany or the USA where judges can annul legislations that are found to be in breach of the human rights act. In the UK however judges can only issue a declaration of incompatibility which sends the legislation back to parliament so that they can make changes to suit the HRA. It is difficult to declare on this subject whether or not there have been enough reforms on the Human Rights Act as through one viewpoint it is important to sometimes evade Human Rights to catch potential terrorists on the other hand millions of people have had to sacrifice their right to private life as has been found with the major scandal of NSA spying on internet records. Some people may argue that if you have nothing to hide you should not fear however people still should be able to have
This is criticised because the current political party in power have the ability to make their own decisions for the UK before listening to what the people want. This then becomes a problem because they may make changes that the majority of the population will not agree with. However, near to the next election they may decide to listen to people as they want them to vote for them (the current political party in power) during the next election. Secondly, the UK has a hereditary monarchy and a house of lords, both which are not elected. This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy.
Although, on the other hand the soveriegnty of parliament does widely interfere with the judicarys ability to protect civil liberties in britain. Acts of parliament are binding on everyone within the UK including the supreme court. The soveriegn status and power of Parliament puts it above the judicary. This means that if a ruling is passed and the government do not approve they are able to avoid the ruling. This was seen in 2005 when in response to the Belmarsh case the government passed the 2005 'Prevention of Terrorism Act'.
The principle organ of the US state is to legislate, represent and scrutinise the other, safely separated, branches of the government. First of the three elements in which Congress’s primary role plays is in legislation. The very first article of the Constitution lays out how this is done. Bills initiated by both the President and members of Congress are almost certain to be substantially modified as they go through the legislative process, making it very difficult for the President or any political faction to force through their policy agenda. Congress has been somewhat effective in passing laws such as the PATRIOTIC Act under Bush and the Healthcare Reform Act under Obama both show’s that Congress can legislate when it needs be, especially with a majority in both houses.
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
Particularly in the internet age, it is increasingly difficult to keep all personal and private information completely secure. However, the federal government does afford American citizens a variety of different privacy rights protected under privacy laws. While it has become somewhat easier to gain access to private information, the federal government has also sought out ways to increase protection in terms of privacy. Additionally, American citizens are constantly looking for ways to increase their own level of privacy (Bartee, 2006). Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was a significant case that illustrates the fine line the federal government walks when trying to protect the privacy of Americans while also trying to uphold Constitutional law.
Firstly, a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens of the state. Most British citizens do not understand the concept of the constitution, nor what the UK constitution entails. It is therefore an argument that having a codified constitution would raise public awareness and support for the government would grow. It would also enable the public and people in government to view the constitution whenever necessary for matters such as court cases, etc. This would encourage public involvement in politics and act as an improvement to our democratic society.
The oral questions are sometimes dominated by loyal backbench government supporters, and it is often suggested that the media provide a more effective form of scrutiny than does parliament. MPs have remarkably limited access to resources, partly because of the largely secretive nature of UK government. They can sometimes contribute to the pressure that might ultimately lead to the resignation of an incompetent