The Advantages of a Codified Constitution Now Outweigh the Disadvantages
The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages
The evidence suggests that the advantages of a codified constitution do not now outweigh the disadvantages.
In codified constitutions, laws are entrenched which makes it harder for them to evolve and adapt to modern requirements because it takes a long time for a response due to the required procedures, which might involve gaining two-thirds majority in the legislature or approval by referendum. As a result, one can argue that countries with codified constitutions struggle to find a resolution to their dogmatic laws. For example, the USA are still unable to introduce stricter gun laws because it opposes the constitutional right for citizens to bear arms, even though nowadays American citizens are less likely to require guns compared to when the American constitution was written in 1787. Recent events such as the Newtown shooting demonstrated the necessity for alterations. Whereas the UK’s uncodified constitution benefits from its flexibility as it can easily adapt to changing circumstances because Parliament can pass new acts relatively quickly and easily without delay when the attitudes of society change. The increase in the use of referendums over constitutional changes such as the devolution of power to Wales and Scotland in 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 illustrate the adaptability of the constitution because power was devolved a year after the referendum.
However some argue that Britain’s uncodified constitution lacks clarity as it doesn’t exist in one clear document. Instead it consists of some written documents such as statues, court judgements and treaties but also conventions. Therefore by having a codified constitution, it would raise public awareness and the British public would understand their rights better. Furthermore it has been suggested that it could improve the problem of political ignorance and apathy in Britain because the turnout for the past three General
The evidence suggests that the advantages of a codified constitution do not now outweigh the disadvantages.
In codified constitutions, laws are entrenched which makes it harder for them to evolve and adapt to modern requirements because it takes a long time for a response due to the required procedures, which might involve gaining two-thirds majority in the legislature or approval by referendum. As a result, one can argue that countries with codified constitutions struggle to find a resolution to their dogmatic laws. For example, the USA are still unable to introduce stricter gun laws because it opposes the constitutional right for citizens to bear arms, even though nowadays American citizens are less likely to require guns compared to when the American constitution was written in 1787. Recent events such as the Newtown shooting demonstrated the necessity for alterations. Whereas the UK’s uncodified constitution benefits from its flexibility as it can easily adapt to changing circumstances because Parliament can pass new acts relatively quickly and easily without delay when the attitudes of society change. The increase in the use of referendums over constitutional changes such as the devolution of power to Wales and Scotland in 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 illustrate the adaptability of the constitution because power was devolved a year after the referendum.
However some argue that Britain’s uncodified constitution lacks clarity as it doesn’t exist in one clear document. Instead it consists of some written documents such as statues, court judgements and treaties but also conventions. Therefore by having a codified constitution, it would raise public awareness and the British public would understand their rights better. Furthermore it has been suggested that it could improve the problem of political ignorance and apathy in Britain because the turnout for the past three General