Should the Uk Retain Its Uncodified Constitution
Should the UKs constitution remain uncodified?
A constitution is a set of rules which may be written or unwritten, establishes the distribution of power in a political system, the limits of government jurisdiction, the rights of citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself. An uncodified constitution is unwritten, or at least not written all in one document. The constitution in the UK is found in a variety of sources which are mainly statute and common law, conventions and traditions, European law etc. There are arguments for the UK to both retain an uncodified constitution and to change this to a codified constitution like the USA. Some of the arguments for retaining the uncodified system are that; codification produces ‘judicial tyranny’, uncodified constitutions are more flexible and lastly that an uncodified system has worked well in the UK for many years and broadly speaking not many people have protested against an uncodified system. On the other hand arguments against retaining an uncodified constitution are that; a codified constitution would clarify the nature for the political system to citizens, codified constitutions can better safeguard the citizen’s rights and lastly that introducing a codified system in the UK would bring the UK in line with most other modern democracies, especially with the European Union. I believe that the constitution in the UK should retain its current uncodified system.
Firstly the UK should retain its current uncodified constitution because codification can produce a ‘judicial tyranny’. Judicial tyranny means that judges have power of supreme arbiter over the constitution because they are able to judge what the constitution says. Members of the judiciary are also unelected which therefore means that they have no binding contract to the people to stand before them fairly and not to abuse the position that they have. This therefore means that the people are being dictated by a small group of people hence the
A constitution is a set of rules which may be written or unwritten, establishes the distribution of power in a political system, the limits of government jurisdiction, the rights of citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself. An uncodified constitution is unwritten, or at least not written all in one document. The constitution in the UK is found in a variety of sources which are mainly statute and common law, conventions and traditions, European law etc. There are arguments for the UK to both retain an uncodified constitution and to change this to a codified constitution like the USA. Some of the arguments for retaining the uncodified system are that; codification produces ‘judicial tyranny’, uncodified constitutions are more flexible and lastly that an uncodified system has worked well in the UK for many years and broadly speaking not many people have protested against an uncodified system. On the other hand arguments against retaining an uncodified constitution are that; a codified constitution would clarify the nature for the political system to citizens, codified constitutions can better safeguard the citizen’s rights and lastly that introducing a codified system in the UK would bring the UK in line with most other modern democracies, especially with the European Union. I believe that the constitution in the UK should retain its current uncodified system.
Firstly the UK should retain its current uncodified constitution because codification can produce a ‘judicial tyranny’. Judicial tyranny means that judges have power of supreme arbiter over the constitution because they are able to judge what the constitution says. Members of the judiciary are also unelected which therefore means that they have no binding contract to the people to stand before them fairly and not to abuse the position that they have. This therefore means that the people are being dictated by a small group of people hence the