Do constitutions really matter?

Authors Avatar

RACHEL SAFIR

                                                                                                        

Do constitutions really matter?

A constitution sets out the formal structure of government specifying the powers and institutions of central government. It also defines the balance between Central and other levels of government. A constitution will specify the rights of citizens, therefore creating limits of duties for the government. Nations need and use constitutions in order to help them put the workings of government into practise, whether it is a codified or uncodified constitution. Many factors, social and economic as well as the countries political culture affect whether a constitution will work and therefore matter to that country.

‘The age of constitutions was initiated by the enactment of the first written constitutions, the US constitution in 1787and the French Declaration of Rights of Man and citizens in 1789’.  There are several different types of classifications.

Although every constitution is a blend of written and unwritten rules, the balance between them varies. This is why the classifications of codified and uncodified came about. Within these classifications, different definitions have come about as well.

A codified constitution is itself authoritative in that it constitutes the higher law. It binds all political institutions and establishes a hierarchy of laws. The US constitution was the first written constitution, consisting of just 7000 words, outlining the broad principles and so lays down a loose framework of government. Originally the US constitution was silent on many points, which subsequently have had to be clarified by judicial interpretation.

In many Western European Countries, for example France and Germany, constitutions act as state code in which the powers of and relationships between political institutions are specified in detail.

Other constitutions have come into existence as Revolutionary manifestos. This sort of constitution could be classified as nominal, as they may accurately describe the governmental behaviour accurately, but fail to limit it. These set out to make a programme of social transformation, e.g.-the Communist states. In the USSR, they had a constitution that actually acknowledged the monopoly of power of the communist party.

They can also just be a set of political ideals. This is what many third world countries have an image of the world, as the regime would like it to be, not as it actually is.

Other constitutions embody an ancient source of authority. For example, Britain’s constitution is sometimes traced back to the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701.  Although Britain, along with Israel have an uncodified or unwritten constitution. Although Britain’s constitution is uncodified, part of it is written, and draws upon a variety of sources, including statute, common law, conventions and various works of authority. The absence of a codified document means that the ‘legislature enjoys sovereign or unchallengeable authority.’ Therefore the constitution

Join now!

                                                                                                        

means what they say it means, as they e.g.- the British Parliament or Israel’s’ Knesset are the ultimate arbiters of the constitution.

An alternate classification distinguishes between constitutions being rigid and flexible. Usually a codified constitution is classified as rigid. This is because their terms are usually entrenched by the higher law. The US constitution is one of the most rigid constitutions to amend.  In addition to two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, it must also be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This has meant that only 26 amendments have been made since ...

This is a preview of the whole essay