Arguments Against Codified Constitution
A constitution is a set of rules that establishes basic principles within the government and its internal institutions. These rules outline the powers and functions of the institutions along with regulating the relationships between these institutions, the state and individuals. Constitutions can be classified in various ways. Like the majority of countries, the USA adopts a codified constitution, a written constitution that has been formed into one single document. The USA’s Constitution and Bill of Rights was founded from the Magna Carta, commissioned by King John of England. However the UK, alongside Israel and few other countries, adopts an uncodified constitution. Despite the UK’s constitution being classified as ‘unwritten’ it draws
…show more content…
from many different sources. The UK’s constitution is formed by many different statues, Common Law, EU Law alongside case law and historical documents.
The UK’s constitution is partially written yet is still uncodified as it has not yet been consolidated into one single document. The UK’s constitution has developed drastically since the commission of the Magna Carta 800 years ago (1215) yet despite the USA’s constitution being derived from the Magna Carter, the UK has not followed suit in adopting a single document outlining the rules and regulations that the government must abide by. Throughout this essay I will assess arguments for and against the codification of the UK’s constitution.
Critique of the options for change
There have been numerous proposals as to what a codified constitution in the UK should contain. As it stands, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. The Monarch acts as Head of State yet only an elected parliament has the ability to make legislation. As suggested in the Political and Constitution Reform Committee’s report …show more content…
on The UK Constitution the Monarchy shouldn’t be hereditary but should be elected by the people. They have outlined the selective process of which the Monarch would be elected, narrowing down the bracket of which a possible monarch must fall into. The process of an elective monarchy has its advantages as the selection falls to the people. This means the elected monarch would hold the needs of the people above that of a hereditary monarch, whose primary concern is the family from which they became a monarch. This stands to uphold the constitution that is set as it recognises every individual as equal within the eyes of the state. However, the Political and Constitution Reform Committee’s proposal of an elective monarchy distinguishes that any selected monarch must act with strict political neutrality, thus having no say in any statutes that are passed. The presence of a politically neutral Head of State is beneficial to the social solidarity of a society. The UK’s monarch is what sets us apart from the US. The Queen is a focal point for our society; she keeps solidarity in a society that is always changing. By keeping a monarch as Head of State who only preforms a ceremonial role, the UK can ensure people feel secure in society. The Monarch represents our identity without the opposing threat of politics. This abolishes any political views that the people may have against a head of state, viewing the monarch as a symbol solely for the development of our country.
By adopting the process of which the people solely appoint the Prime Minister as executive of the Government, we ensure that the people see that they’re needs are being met. The Prime Minister will only be able to amend any laws in the constitution is he/she obtains the support of the majority of each House of Parliament. As proposed in the Political and Constitution Reform Committees repot on The UK Constitution, the members of the chambers will be elected by the people. This ensures that any possible amendments of the constitution are formed upon the needs and requirement of the people within the society. It ensures that no amendments are made that are solely beneficial to one party within Parliament.
By ensuring the people stay active within the selection process of the government, we ensure that the needs of our society are met as the people see fit. This could be extremely beneficial to the UK as it would limit confrontation between the government and the individual. However, the Judges will have sovereignty in passing laws that effect the constitution, and as the judges are not directly elected by the people and parliament don’t have flexibility in adapting judge made law, it could result in confrontation within our society.
What are the pros and cons of a written constitution?
There are numerous pros and cons as to the presence of a written constitution within a society.
Presently, it seems that the UK has not faulted in the absence of a written constitution as it relies more on precedent than a single written document. If the UK were to have formed a written constitution it would lose flexibility in being able to adapt quickly to state of affairs or crisis. Adopting a codified written constitution limits a countries ability to adapt and change with the times in order to meet the new requirements of the society. Remaining uncodified, the UK’s constitution can continue to develop over time without having to follow lengthy procedures as the US has to. Due to the USA’s written constitution holding the highest authority, in order to change it must follow a formal process of amendment that not even congress has the authority to over-rule. This limitation on the ability for a written constitution to change inevitably restricts a countries ability to grow and adapt as its successors require. The introduction of a written constitution into the UK would not only limit the growth of society over time, but would limit parliaments and the government power. Currently, Parliament may pass laws on any matter they see fit without facing any restriction. A written constitution would deny any laws passed that don’t comply with the
Constitution.
By enforcing a written constitution parliamentary sovereignty and government sovereignty would decrease. This denies the government and parliament the power to freely amend and in state laws as they currently can in the UK. By adopting a written constitution sovereignty would be passed to the judicial system, meaning the people and the courts would hold more power. A law could not be passed if it conflicted in any way with a written constitution as the constitution holds the upmost authority over legislature.
A problem that would arise if the UK was to adopt a written constitution would be the power that the courts and judges would hold. As written constitution is ruled upon by judges, it would be seen as undemocratic to allow our un-elected judges to hold authority over our elected parliament. Parliament would be powerless to alter any judicial ruling that they not see fit without having to follow the lengthy process of amending the constitution.
The process of which a written constitution must follow to be amended can restrict a countries ability to respond in crisis. If the UK was to codify its constitution, it would face restrictions when trying to amend the constitution. The flexibility of the UK’s current uncodified constitution gave them the ability to quickly enforce Acts in order to protect the country. Examples of this arise in The Prevention of Terrorism act 2005 which dealt with the problems that arose from the detention of 8 terrorist which conflicted with European Human Rights Laws. The UK’s ability to quickly enforce this act limited threats to the country as they were able to detain and hold anyone who posed significant threat to the countries safety. If a written constitution was instated, the UK would lose its ability to quickly tackle any threats, thus a written constitution would make a country more vulnerable to crisis.
The lack of flexibility when a written constitution is in place can also be beneficial. The laws remain clear and free from ambiguity. This results in the people clearly understanding the laws in the constitution and their fundamental rights. As it stands in the UK, The Human Rights Act 1998 outlines individual’s rights within our society and currently forms part of our constitution today. This shows that our country can still uphold a constitution without it having to be adopted into one single codified document. However, since our constitution is uncodified, the Government has the power to revoke this act at any time its sees fit due to parliamentary sovereignty. The embodiment of a written constitution will provide security of people’s rights and protect them from being easily amended as the law can be today. A written constitution will also give people something to refer to and understand simpler than the current UK constitution. This gives the individuals the ability to be more knowledgeable of the laws and rights that they have. A written constitution could easily be taught in schools as it isn’t constantly changing or amending. This will give children an insight into their rights and also better help them understand the laws that they must follow.
As it currently stands, the United Kingdom’s flexibility in adapting the laws to ensure they stay relevant and the UK stays protected is extremely advantageous. The introduction of a written constitution could be extremely detrimental to the United Kingdom in many ways. It doesn’t seem viable to drastically adapt and draft UK’s laws into a single codified document at possible detriment to the current successful system that the UK has in play. A written constitution has often resulted from a revolution, as in the USA in 1787 or France in 1789. Presently, the UK’s success in Parliament and our judicial system has stood the test of time. It seems to be counter-productive to replace an already functioning system. In my opinion, based on the argument set out in my essay, it would not be beneficial to the United Kingdom to adopt a written codified constitution. It would be a waste of time and would merely hinder the UK more than help. Until parliament and the judicial system give us any reason to revolutionise the system, it seems the UK can only benefit from continuing with its uncodified yet favourable constitution that is set out in many different documents.
from many different sources. The UK’s constitution is formed by many different statues, Common Law, EU Law alongside case law and historical documents.
The UK’s constitution is partially written yet is still uncodified as it has not yet been consolidated into one single document. The UK’s constitution has developed drastically since the commission of the Magna Carta 800 years ago (1215) yet despite the USA’s constitution being derived from the Magna Carter, the UK has not followed suit in adopting a single document outlining the rules and regulations that the government must abide by. Throughout this essay I will assess arguments for and against the codification of the UK’s constitution.
Critique of the options for change
There have been numerous proposals as to what a codified constitution in the UK should contain. As it stands, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. The Monarch acts as Head of State yet only an elected parliament has the ability to make legislation. As suggested in the Political and Constitution Reform Committee’s report …show more content…
on The UK Constitution the Monarchy shouldn’t be hereditary but should be elected by the people. They have outlined the selective process of which the Monarch would be elected, narrowing down the bracket of which a possible monarch must fall into. The process of an elective monarchy has its advantages as the selection falls to the people. This means the elected monarch would hold the needs of the people above that of a hereditary monarch, whose primary concern is the family from which they became a monarch. This stands to uphold the constitution that is set as it recognises every individual as equal within the eyes of the state. However, the Political and Constitution Reform Committee’s proposal of an elective monarchy distinguishes that any selected monarch must act with strict political neutrality, thus having no say in any statutes that are passed. The presence of a politically neutral Head of State is beneficial to the social solidarity of a society. The UK’s monarch is what sets us apart from the US. The Queen is a focal point for our society; she keeps solidarity in a society that is always changing. By keeping a monarch as Head of State who only preforms a ceremonial role, the UK can ensure people feel secure in society. The Monarch represents our identity without the opposing threat of politics. This abolishes any political views that the people may have against a head of state, viewing the monarch as a symbol solely for the development of our country.
By adopting the process of which the people solely appoint the Prime Minister as executive of the Government, we ensure that the people see that they’re needs are being met. The Prime Minister will only be able to amend any laws in the constitution is he/she obtains the support of the majority of each House of Parliament. As proposed in the Political and Constitution Reform Committees repot on The UK Constitution, the members of the chambers will be elected by the people. This ensures that any possible amendments of the constitution are formed upon the needs and requirement of the people within the society. It ensures that no amendments are made that are solely beneficial to one party within Parliament.
By ensuring the people stay active within the selection process of the government, we ensure that the needs of our society are met as the people see fit. This could be extremely beneficial to the UK as it would limit confrontation between the government and the individual. However, the Judges will have sovereignty in passing laws that effect the constitution, and as the judges are not directly elected by the people and parliament don’t have flexibility in adapting judge made law, it could result in confrontation within our society.
What are the pros and cons of a written constitution?
There are numerous pros and cons as to the presence of a written constitution within a society.
Presently, it seems that the UK has not faulted in the absence of a written constitution as it relies more on precedent than a single written document. If the UK were to have formed a written constitution it would lose flexibility in being able to adapt quickly to state of affairs or crisis. Adopting a codified written constitution limits a countries ability to adapt and change with the times in order to meet the new requirements of the society. Remaining uncodified, the UK’s constitution can continue to develop over time without having to follow lengthy procedures as the US has to. Due to the USA’s written constitution holding the highest authority, in order to change it must follow a formal process of amendment that not even congress has the authority to over-rule. This limitation on the ability for a written constitution to change inevitably restricts a countries ability to grow and adapt as its successors require. The introduction of a written constitution into the UK would not only limit the growth of society over time, but would limit parliaments and the government power. Currently, Parliament may pass laws on any matter they see fit without facing any restriction. A written constitution would deny any laws passed that don’t comply with the
Constitution.
By enforcing a written constitution parliamentary sovereignty and government sovereignty would decrease. This denies the government and parliament the power to freely amend and in state laws as they currently can in the UK. By adopting a written constitution sovereignty would be passed to the judicial system, meaning the people and the courts would hold more power. A law could not be passed if it conflicted in any way with a written constitution as the constitution holds the upmost authority over legislature.
A problem that would arise if the UK was to adopt a written constitution would be the power that the courts and judges would hold. As written constitution is ruled upon by judges, it would be seen as undemocratic to allow our un-elected judges to hold authority over our elected parliament. Parliament would be powerless to alter any judicial ruling that they not see fit without having to follow the lengthy process of amending the constitution.
The process of which a written constitution must follow to be amended can restrict a countries ability to respond in crisis. If the UK was to codify its constitution, it would face restrictions when trying to amend the constitution. The flexibility of the UK’s current uncodified constitution gave them the ability to quickly enforce Acts in order to protect the country. Examples of this arise in The Prevention of Terrorism act 2005 which dealt with the problems that arose from the detention of 8 terrorist which conflicted with European Human Rights Laws. The UK’s ability to quickly enforce this act limited threats to the country as they were able to detain and hold anyone who posed significant threat to the countries safety. If a written constitution was instated, the UK would lose its ability to quickly tackle any threats, thus a written constitution would make a country more vulnerable to crisis.
The lack of flexibility when a written constitution is in place can also be beneficial. The laws remain clear and free from ambiguity. This results in the people clearly understanding the laws in the constitution and their fundamental rights. As it stands in the UK, The Human Rights Act 1998 outlines individual’s rights within our society and currently forms part of our constitution today. This shows that our country can still uphold a constitution without it having to be adopted into one single codified document. However, since our constitution is uncodified, the Government has the power to revoke this act at any time its sees fit due to parliamentary sovereignty. The embodiment of a written constitution will provide security of people’s rights and protect them from being easily amended as the law can be today. A written constitution will also give people something to refer to and understand simpler than the current UK constitution. This gives the individuals the ability to be more knowledgeable of the laws and rights that they have. A written constitution could easily be taught in schools as it isn’t constantly changing or amending. This will give children an insight into their rights and also better help them understand the laws that they must follow.
As it currently stands, the United Kingdom’s flexibility in adapting the laws to ensure they stay relevant and the UK stays protected is extremely advantageous. The introduction of a written constitution could be extremely detrimental to the United Kingdom in many ways. It doesn’t seem viable to drastically adapt and draft UK’s laws into a single codified document at possible detriment to the current successful system that the UK has in play. A written constitution has often resulted from a revolution, as in the USA in 1787 or France in 1789. Presently, the UK’s success in Parliament and our judicial system has stood the test of time. It seems to be counter-productive to replace an already functioning system. In my opinion, based on the argument set out in my essay, it would not be beneficial to the United Kingdom to adopt a written codified constitution. It would be a waste of time and would merely hinder the UK more than help. Until parliament and the judicial system give us any reason to revolutionise the system, it seems the UK can only benefit from continuing with its uncodified yet favourable constitution that is set out in many different documents.