How do you think our rights were protected against tyranny by the Constitution? Tyranny is when one person is given all the power to control a country of a government in a dictator like manner. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in several ways, which were federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, big states vs. small states. The first guard against tyranny was Federalism, a system of government in which power is divided between a federal government and state government. The guard of federalism is shown one way in the Constitution when they set up the compound government to make sure that the federal government doesn’t get too much power.
Also, no power to regulate commerce, and lastly no executive branch to enforce laws; but limited by checks and balances. Lastly, the Bill of Rights had a lot of amendments and all were important. A couple of them were Freedom of Speech, Religion, and press; Right to bear arms; and Rights in Criminal Cases. In conclusion, this is my essay on a couple of reasons on how the colonists’ experiences prior to and during the Revolutionary War influence features of state Constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and the ConstitutionTo begin with, one of the experiences was that the Declatory ACTS was parliament’s ability to tax without representation, and the influence to that was that the Articles of Confederation restricted congress from taxing. Also, another experience was the Tamp Act, and the influences were taxation without representation.
Many critics have discussed whether or not a Bill of Rights has a place within the UK and its constitution. I will analyse the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a Bill of Rights in order to conclude on whether or not the current system should remain in place or a new system would prevail. As the Human Rights Act has played a vital part in the UK taking a step towards having a written constitution similar to that of other Western societies, it would be useful to consider whether this acts as a sufficient alternative to a Bill of Rights and whether or not there are any other alternatives that could serve the same purpose. Finally, I will analyse whether or not the Human Rights Act1 to make a decision on whether it should remain in place or adds unnecessary restrictions on protecting the UK and its citizens. English law has often been criticised for not being codified unlike other countries.
The federalism created by the founding fathers differs, as the essay title suggests, in many ways to that of todays. This is most obviously the case when it comes to influence and power. The early federal system devised by the Founding Fathers and regulated by the constitution was a ‘duel federal system.’ What this means is that the national (federal) government and the states both had separate spheres of authority and worked independently side by side. This made the two levels of government ‘equals’ and ‘sovereign’ within their own jurisdiction as there was little interference from one to the other (Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2002, p418). The U.S constitution outlines which areas are to belong: exclusively to the federal government; make treaties, coin money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce; to both the
The British Constitution Briefly explain the term flexible as used in the extract Flexible means that the constitution can be amended easily and quickly as unlike a rigid constitution such as the one in the US, there is no lengthy procedure for change that has to be followed. A flexible constitution it can be altered via the law-making process, by a simple majority in the legislature as no laws are regarded as fundamental. “There is no convincing case for a written/codified constitution in Britain” Discuss To a certain extent there is no convincing case for a codified constitution in Britain. The main reason against a codified constitution in Britain is because a codified constitution would totally undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, the idea that Parliament can legislate as it chooses and that there can be no superior authority to Parliament. Moreover, no such document could be entrenched whilst Parliament retains the power to alter it at will.
The UK has an unwritten constitution as there is no single authoritative document which establishes government regulations. There is a constitutional jigsaw of various sources, such as legislation, case law, Royal Prerogative and Constitutional conventions. These are the main sources of the UK constitution and so merit discussion. This can be contrasted to the USA which has a written constitution, setting out the fundamental laws. I argue that to some extent the UK has a flexible constitution, and Giussani’s statement is partly correct.
A constitution is a set of rules relating to how a state is to be governed and organised. The primary function of a constitution is to provide legitimacy to those in power; however it also defines the limits of government power, protects freedom and distributes power within the political system. As such it could be said that due to the UK having an uncodified constitution there are many strengths and weaknesses, (such as?) however some of these help to make the UK constitution a better one than other countries like the USA who have to stick to their constitution. –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.
Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements. The laws and customs of Parliament re also a source of the constitution. Works of authority are also referred to as authoritative sources such as books by Dicey or Bagehot. Finally, European Union Law also impacts the UK constitution as the judgements of the European court of Justice, in general EU law has precedence over that passed by Parliament. A codified constitution is too inflexible and cannot adapt to the changing political circumstance, such as society changing.
Secondly there is Common Law, Common law includes legal principles that have been developed and applied by UK courts. The courts interpret and clarify the law where there is no clear statute law. Common law takes legal precedent made by judges, for example, the right of homeowners to tackle intruders who enter their property. Government ministers may clarify or amend common law trough Acts of Parliament. The common law also includes customs and precedents that have become accepted practice.
How do the rule of law and accountability operate within the United Kingdom constitution? Does the reality match your picture of how a democracy should work? Explain your reasoning drawing on relevant material you have studied. Define Rule of law. The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.