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.
‘The rules which allocate and control governmental power in the United Kingdom are so diverse and uncertain that the existence of such a thing as the “constitution of the United Kingdom” must be open to doubt.’ Discuss. This essay will consider the question as to whether the existence of the United Kingdom’s constitution can be said to be ‘in doubt’ as a result of the ‘diverse and uncertain’ nature of the ‘rules that allocate and control governmental power’. It will consider what is meant by the term ‘Constitution’ and how, if at all, the UK’s set of Laws and Conventions resemble this. Following on from this, it will discuss whether or not the existence of the UK’s constitution is clear or whether it is open to doubt as a result of its unwritten nature as well as the spread of powers across various decision making bodies such as devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. What defines a Constitution?
In agreement, I believe all shall follow for strictly guidelines and restrictions, not to be precise within each Amendment, not one should uphold detail. The unwritten Constitution refers to traditions that have become part of our political system. Although George Washington warned us against Political Parties, they nominate candidates for office. Political Parties are not written into The Constitution, yet the people of the United States are left to vote and decide who the winner of the elections will be, and who will take the position as the next President of the United States. Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate.
‘The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose.’ Discuss There is much debate whether or not the British constitution is fit for purpose in today’s society. A constitution is a set of laws and principles that governs a country. The UK constitution is uncodified which automatically means it is not fit for purpose. It is not found in one authoritative document and it has some unwritten parts, this makes it flexible and therefore not fit for purpose which is to govern. There are several arguments arguing against the above statement and they will be explored later on in this essay.
–Clear definition of constitution, list some of the strengths and weaknesses in your introduction A strength of Britain having an uncodified constitution is that its nature is flexible. Meaning that the government is not limited with their ability to change governing arrangements by having to go through a lengthy and complex and procedure, as the USA have to go through to just change something within their constitution, as such their constitution has only been changed 27 tines altogether since it was created in 1787. As a result the labour party were able to bring the European Convention on Human Right into British law in 1998 with the Human Rights Act. Cameron will also be able to repeal the Human Rights Act is wants to and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, due to Dicey’s rule of law Don’t you mean his view of parliamentary supremacy?) which is one of the sources of the constitution with one of the three rules being that no Parliament is able to bind a future Parliament.
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
The current UK constitution has so many strengths that reform is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement? In the UK we have an uncodified constitution, which means we have many different sources of the constitution rather than have a single authoritative document, which would be a codified constitution. The most significant source of the constitution is legislation which consists of both Acts of Parliament and lesser legislation like Orders in Council, and rules and regulation made by ministers under statutory authority. Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements.
Unlike the mere policymaker, the interpreter or constructor engages the Constitution directly and attempts to address and resolve contested claims about constitutional meaning. But political actors engaged in these tasks do not claim the authority to revise, amend or alter the Constitution. They claim only the
Parliamentary sovereignty 'Although in theory Parliament is sovereign, the problematic reality is that British constitutional arrangements ensure that true power lies with the Executive.' Part A: Many countries such as the United States have a written constitution but Britain does not, however 'it must have something which is at the heart of its constitutional arrangements'[1] and this need is fulfilled by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The traditional and most often applied definition of parliamentary sovereignty is that of Dicey, who stated, 'the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament'[2]. From this definition, three fundamental principles can be derived; the first is that Parliament can make or unmake any law. An example of this principle in practice; The Septennial Act 1715 was passed to extend the life of Parliament from three to seven years out of fear of the effects of an election.
Unlike other nations, UK does not have a written constitution (codified constitution), for example United State has a codified constitution which can always referred to their constitution, and therefore the sources like Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Right 1688 and etc are essentially important in UK. Constitutional Convention is a set of rules and practices that define the relationship and power of those institutions of state. Due to the absence of codified constitution in UK this leads to the difficulties in identifying the constitutional sources. There are two main sources made up of the UK constitution: legal sources (statues, judicial decision and prerogative power) are the principal source and the non legal sources (convention) which primarily relates to the political rules of behaviour. To investigate the proposition there is no clear definition what amounts to a convention.