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

The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages. Discuss [40 marks]

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages. Discuss [40 marks] A codified constitution is a constitution made up of a set of laws that an individual or set of people have made and agreed upon for governmental use and is most importantly documented in a single place. In theory, the documentation of a codified constitution appears to make minimal difference to the executive and judiciary system, however, in common practice the advantages of a codified constitution in present day UK in regards to the executive, judiciary and society as a whole do not outweigh the disadvantages. This is due the fact that many of the issues which point toward the advantages of a codified constitution, such as modernization, rights and adaptability also reveal distinct social and political disadvantages to the incorporation of a codified constitution; ultimately the use of other tenuous links fail to alter the fact that the advantages of a codified constitution do not outweigh the disadvantages at the present moment in time. The choice facing the country is therefore whether to adopt the sort of explicit, formal supreme law typified by documents such as the United States Constitution. The alternative is to retain the status quo of its constitution consisting of a variety of informal codes and conventions, many of them unwritten, which guide the political and legal culture of the country. ...read more.

Middle

A larger role for the judiciary would empower these unelected officials to "legislate from the bench" by interpreting laws according to their political views and striking down legislation they oppose. For instance, the constitutionally-empowered judiciary of the United States often even goes so far as to dictate the details of social policy. A constitution would not get rid of unappealable power, but rather transfer that power to a body far less accountable than Parliament. The power the judges now have could lead to judicial tyranny. Judges should not be able to police the constitution because they are unelected [by the electorate] and are not socially representative. This means that there is a lack of democratic legitimacy and certain groups in society (e.g. ethnic minorities) may not get their opinions realised. The lack of democratic legitimacy amongst judges would lead to a democratic deficit because it acts on a limiting factor on governmental power. Another disadvantage to constitutional reform, particularly relating to Britain is the issue of who would write the constitution should we decide it to be written. With the possibility of having a written constitution the issue of considering who would write it would be one of great disagreement and debate. It would cause a great degree of pressure in locating a single group, or individual of a neutral position. ...read more.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the advantages of a codified constitution do not outweigh the disadvantages as a codified constitution could lead to the Judiciary holding excessive power and becoming tyrannical. Furthermore, deciding what to include, who should write it and how it should be written would cause a huge debate, therefore costing a lot of taxpayers money and a lot of MPs time. Moreover, a codified constitution leads to an obsession with the text itself. The wording of the constitution would cause a mass debate as the Party in Government at the time the constitution is codified would be able to slant it towards their political ideology. By establishing a formal document as the supreme law of the land, the state creates an incentive for all actors to interpret it in bad faith in order to suit their agendas. For example, in the United States, politicians, lobby groups, corporations, and citizens all fight over what the phrasing of the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means. There are however advantages to a codified constitution, such as it would provide a safeguard against an ?elective dictatorship? and it provides the separation of powers necessary to keep each part of the government in check. But, because of the huge disadvantages, I conclude that the advantages of a codified constitution do not outweigh the disadvantages. ...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. To what extent are judges neutral and independent?

    Firstly, the arguments for judicial neutrality. It is important that our judges are neutral as otherwise (in their job as mediators and deciders) justice and any decisions they make based on the characteristics of a person will be unfair (it is for precisely this reason that previous criminal convictions are not allowed as evidence in a court case).

  2. Discuss the indepedence of the UK Judiciary

    The Human Rights Act of 1998 effectively enhances the role of judges in such scenarios. One of the most influential factors influencing judicial independence is the sub judice rule. This rule is widely acknowledged (and is pretty much mandatory to be)

  1. priministers power

    o Nor can Prime Ministers always keep Ministers they would like to. Thatcher lost Parkinson in 1987 over a sex scandal; Mellor similarly went in 1992; Mandelson was sacked by Blair in a panic early in 2001. The limits of Blair's power has been shown by the victory of Ken

  2. Is the Prime Minister now effectively a President? [40 marks]

    However, Blair was often criticised for his interest in foreign policy and lack of interest in the home front, therefore his interest in assuming the role of a president in foreign affairs cannot be applied universally to the role of the prime minister.

  1. Should Britain adopt a written constitution?

    The fact that Britain is rather affluently has allowed the constitution to develop over the years in a slow process but grown to suit the day to day operations as mentioned by Sir Ivor Jennings ?the British constitution had not been made, but grown? [5].

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

    So with a codified constitution the powers of these offices would be clearly outlined, a good example to use here is the Queen?s powers. Another argument in favour of adopting a codified constitution is the limited government. Adopting a codified constitution would cut the government down in size.

  1. "The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages" Discuss (40)

    In regards to adaptability however, the fundamental premise in which the implementation of a codified constitution is found wanting is it?s rigid nature in terms if natural progression. This is in sharp contrast to the current uncodified format of Britain?s current constitution which has used its flexible nature to allow natural adaptation to the tune of social change.

  2. Define Direct Democracy. What are the advantages and disadvantages of referendums?

    Plato also pointed to the problem that if people make their own laws, they will become accustomed not to obeying them, but to repealing and altering the laws to suit themselves. Essentially, the regular use of referendums would lead to a loss of respect for government, elected representatives and institutions.

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