• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Constitution - Sources and Codified Debates

Extracts from this document...


Constitution Questions What is a constitution? A constitution is an authoritative set of laws and practices specifying how a state is to be governed and the relationship between the state and the individual. A constitution can be written (codified) or unwritten (uncodified) and provides the framework for the political system. The UK's constitution is uncodified and determines where sovereignty resides within the state. Explain, using examples, the sources of the UK constitution. Due to the UK's uncodified constitution we have to look for the key rules of the political system in different places. One source of the UK constitution is statute law which is law created by Parliament. There have been many recent examples of statute law that were of major constitutional significance, including the Scotland Act (19980 which created a Scottish Parliament, the Human Rights Act (1998) and the House of Lords Act which looked at removing hereditary peers. ...read more.


The UK has an uncodified constitution which is relatively uncommon in today's world with only two other countries, Israel and New Zealand having an uncodified constitution. There are arguments on both sides as to whether the UK constitution should remain uncodified or not. One of the arguments for having an uncodified constitution is its flexibility and its ability to cope with the ever changing political process, due to the fact it can be changed by Parliament through statute law. This ability has since allowed devolution for Scotland and Wales in 1997 and the passing of the Human Rights Act in 1998. The constitution has proven its worth, operating effectively with no major problems arising from having an uncodified constitution as it can constantly change to suit the circumstances of the current time. Another argument for an uncodified constitution is that it has evolved and developed alongside the country so that its rules and laws remain relevant to the people of Britain, thus meaning that it reflects the history and values of the British. ...read more.


rights were simply based upon common law assumption from the public. Although this Act has outlined the basic rights citizens of the UK hold it still does not give them inalienable rights so its provisions can be set aside by Parliament and by the government of the day. With regards to the citizens, a codified constitution would help them to establish values and principles on which the politics of the UK is based, it may help educate them and understand their countries power and ruling. Overall I believe that although a codified constitution may help more people understand their core political values and principles, but this is simply not necessary as the country has been able to function effectively with an uncodified constitution. The room that the uncodified constitution leaves for interpretation allows for more flexibility allowing the constitution to develop alongside the country as seen by devolution and the Human rights Act. In conclusion I believe the UK's constitution should remain uncodifed. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Explain the arguments for and against introducing a codified constitution

    3 star(s)

    However, as Britain has no codified constitution people are far less aware of their rights. A codified constitution would strengthen rights protection. Some believe the Human Rights Act, though a step forward, still lacks in entrenchment and not adequately protected.

  2. Free essay

    U.K Constitution

    What many saw as an erosion of civil liberties suggested the advantages of a Bill of Rights. The centralisation of power (the reduction of the powers of local government, for example) and the increasing use of un-elected guanos led to calls for greater democracy and accountability.

  1. Should Britain adopt a written constitution?

    A written constitution is ruled upon judges, and In Britain the judges are unelected and therefore undemocratic, hence this would give them obsolete power. Moreover, practical reasons as the UK from adopting a codified constitution would lead to time consuming (India Constitution took 2years to end it), besides that a

  2. Should the UK constitution remain uncodified?

    In the UK's uncodified constitution, supreme constitutional authority is vested in the elected House of Commons. Changes to the constitution therefore come about due to democratic pressure. Example being the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, because of a

  1. Assess whether or not the United Kingdom should adopt a codified constitution?

    As they cannot change it easily, it will therefore find it difficult to respond to changing political circumstances. This example is very crucial because flexibility is an important ability for a constitution to have in today?s ever-changing environment. This is a major flaw to codified constitutions.

  2. Should the Constitution of the UK remain uncodified?

    Who would elect the members? If a plebiscite was held, then there is a chance that the people running to be in he committee would all share similar political views, making the future constitution opinionated towards that political standpoint. Another issue is that Parliament cannot bind itself ? it can only pass statute laws, which cannot bind future governments.

  1. Should the UK have a codified constitution?

    So I agree more strongly with the argument for keeping the uncodified constitution. Those in favour of keeping the constitution as it is also argue that the traditional elements of government, such as the House of Lords and the Monarchy, moderate the decisions made by the government and the House of Commons.

  2. Should the UKs constitution remain uncodified?

    Although there are many benefits in adopting a ?written constitution? I believe there is a stronger argument for the U.K to keep its constitution in its ?unwritten? form. Firstly, there is no formal process where a codified constitution could be introduced.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work