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

The fact that the UK does not have a written constitution is no practical significance to the individual. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

1. The fact that the UK does not have a written constitution is no practical significance to the individual. Discuss. A constitution is broadly described as a body of rules and responsibilities of the major organs and officers of government and the relationship between them. In a narrower sense a constitution refers to a single document of a state's constitutional rules in a documentary or codified form. Britain is mistakenly referred to as having an "unwritten" constitution which is misleading as strictly speaking much of the constitution can be found in written documents such as acts of parliament. Unlike Britain the USA's constitution is a written constitution with its major rules being codified and contained within seven articles with their subsequent amendments. It is suggested that this country in its history, law and literature have done more than any other to advance the liberty of the citizen against the state. The question then arises as to why we are afraid of enshrining British freedom in a written constitution. One of the most obvious and maybe most important points to put forward are that "if it isn't broke, then don't fix it" Any attempt to improve on a system that already works is pointless and may even be detrimental. ...read more.

Middle

This indicates that a fully codified written constitution would be unable to keep with eh times, ultimately rendering it obsolete, This therefore means that within the uk there is no such things as constitutional guarantees due to the fact that no legislation is given any special status whether is to be deemed constitutional or not. In any state with a written constitution the constitution is superior to the legislature and it confers and distributes the legislative power. The constitutional document would give constitutional guarantees as the executive would have to honour them. Therefore the document may be seen as a way of restricting the powers of parliament and the executive as the document would be legally entrenched which a big advantage of a written constitution is. However this may also be seen as a disadvantage as a written constitution is extremely difficult, near impossible to amend or change. The fact that our constitution is unwritten means that parliament can basically pass any law it chooses. Therefore the constitution is far more flexible; which is advantageous as it means the laws of the state will be able to adapt more quickly to social needs. The British parliament is subject to no authority beyond itself and this goes against the principle of the rule of law which our democracy is based on. ...read more.

Conclusion

Which acts as one of the UK's constitutional rules therefore this is a disadvantage of adopting a written constitution as it clearly shows we may not have our constitution in a single document but it does exist. Although parliament still remains supreme in the UK and could technically repeal this legislation at any time, we might better the individuals by the incorporation of these within a written constitution. Where it cannot be repealed or amended like the ordinary statue law by a simple majority vote in parliament. Therefore a written would be advantageous in protecting the individual's rights and liberties against the state. In conclusion a written constitution can be seen as a far more advantageous way of setting out and clarifying the rules and regulations of a state, but it is only appropriate at the right time and in the right circumstances. It can be said that most people in the UK aren't aware of what a constitution is, and although some may argue that a public insight into politics may be achieved by a written constitution many would oppose this happening. Britain's present successful judicial system and democratic parliament has remained stable and has a reasonable government for years, why risk detriment to the country if the codified form of a constitution does not necessarily play a part in its effectiveness. ...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

    How effective is the British Constitution in protecting the rights of its citizens?

    3 star(s)

    For example; increasing pressure from anti-foxhunting groups influenced the government enough for them to create a law against it. Often scandal is attached to the influence that they have, groups such as Wynn Transport decided to influence politicians in order to achieve their goals as opposed to the open protest that animal rights activists and environmental groups often favour.

  2. Discuss the indepedence of the UK Judiciary

    Judicial neutrality basically refers to judges serving justice in courts, that is not influenced by there background e.g. religious, social, gender, sexual, political or racial bias.. Judicial neutrality is a subject closely linked to judicial independence.

  1. What, If Anything, Would Be Achieved By The United Kingdom Adopting A Codified Constitution?

    Parliament, it was still passed as easily as a usual act of parliament was.5 Some may say that this is a disadvantage, that it allows politicians to have too much power; acts can be repealed as easily as they are made and if Parliament chooses so, they may enact an Act, which could eradicate the constitutional principles of the U.K.

  2. Free essay

    U.K Constitution

    Improving and safeguarding individual and minority rights - the flagship for this has been the Human Rights Act, which came into force on 2nd October 2000. Constitutional reforms that have been introduced 1992-97 The ratifying of the Maastricht Treaty raised questions about Britain's sovereignty.

  1. priministers power

    * Europe deeply divided the party throughout the 1992-7 parliament and when 9 rebel MPs were expelled from the party the small Commons majority disappeared. Tories on the right of the party made veiled criticisms of Major whose irritation was reflected in the so-called 'bastards' tape in the summer of 1993.

  2. How Democratic is the New Russian Constitution?

    For a constitution to be democratic it needs a legal system that effectively supports it. For democracy, society needs to be governed by the rule of law that applies to all individuals and organisations within it. In more detail, the legal system in a country should support the constitution by

  1. Should Britain adopt a written constitution?

    Moreover Britain has never been conquered or ruled by any other power, as it was never colonized, there wasn?t an importance to create a new codified constitution to enhance the public spirit, thus UK were also was never defeated in a war.

  2. Human Rights Legislation and Citizens of the UK

    and Father of the Individual and their occupation, it is a legal requirement for all new births to be registered within 48 days of birth. This allows the country to monitor the population growth. As you get older, aged 16, you are issued with a National Insurance Number; this is

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