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

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a written constitution?

Extracts from this document...


What are the advantages and disadvantages of a written constitution? A written constitution is precisely a charter that has been codified, in that the rules and regulations that citizens must abide by are stated in a single document format. Although elements of the British constitution are written, (eg the statute law), sections of it are not. It must be noted that America follow a written constitution called the "Bill of Rights", and by contrast Britain at present do not adhere to a formal written constitution. Hence, one must consider the advantages and disadvantages of a written constitution to establish a judgement on whether the introduction of a written constitution in Britain is a beneficial concept to acquire. There are many advantages of adopting a written constitution in Britain, and there are many pressure groups, political figures and ordinary people who believe that Britain should have one. Our unwritten constitution is old fashioned, and there is not even an agreement about what it actually contains as it is made up of various conventions, statute laws and ancient documents. Constitutions are supposed to be the fundamental social compacts by which authority and order are maintained, and so a British written constitution would not only provide a rigid means of protecting the people from the power of the executive, but prevent the power of the Government from being too centralised, which is presently a major criticism of the Government. ...read more.


An entrenched codified constitution would also be an advantage to the British Judicial system, as laws would be clearly defined so judges would be able to recognise when laws are broken, and make fairer decisions. Some people believe that even though our unwritten constitution is supposed to be traditional, the running of the country at present does not coincide with the laws that were made hundreds of years ago, as they are simply out of date and not applicable to today's society. A written document would not only modernise British law, but would also follow the majority of the countries in the world, who have working proof that written constitutions are beneficial and successful. Despite the large number of advantages for a written constitution to be incorporated into Britain, there are also many arguments against an entrenched document. Our present constitution may contain many sources, but there is no denying that our constitution does work; Britain has a successful judicial system and a democratic Parliament, and even though it may run in a different way than a country with a written constitution such as America, is certainly isn't less prosperous and flourishing than the US. Also, even though the introduction of a written constitution is possible, it would be extremely time consuming to produce and costly, especially to the British tax payers. ...read more.


Power and sovereignty would then travel from the elected executive to the un-elected judiciary and judges would be able to make political decisions such as make laws and declare unconstitutional actions, which is undemocratic and unjust. The final disadvantage of introducing a written constitution into Britain is that the supposed inflexible and rigid nature of written constitutions of other countries is often open to amendments when laws are out dated. Unless our constitution declared that the constitution could not be amended similar to in Italy, there is danger that laws may need to be changed and it would not be possible. If we adopted a written constitution and amended it whenever necessary, there would hardly be any difference to the present constitutional system. Overall, there are valid reasons for and against written constitutions, in that a written constitution would bring many economical, social and political benefits, and be a worthwhile move for the future of Britain, and will protect against arbitrary government. However by contrast there are also a great number of arguments against a written constitution, which would pose the country a lot of problems if Parliament decided to introduce one. A valid point is that there may not be many negative consequences of introducing a written constitution, but as the present one works efficiently, there is simply no necessity for one, in my belief. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Public Law 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 University Degree Public Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    UK constitution

    3 star(s)

    Although Parliament still remains Supreme in the United Kingdom and could technically repeal this legislation at any time, we might better protect by the

  2. Compare and contrast written and unwritten constitutions. Which type of constitution do you favour?

    This gives it some degree of flexibility, but could also be seen as a lack of security. The government can include entrenchment clauses in an Act or statute, but this can still be repealed simply by passing another statute to do so.

  1. What is the argument for and against a written constitution for the UK? ...

    So for example the extensions of the suffrage in the 19th century, reforms of the Lords 1911, partition of Ireland in 1921, Irish Home Rule, entry to the EC and the proposal for Scottish devolution were constitutional changes emerged through conflict rather than by general agreement.

  2. Research Proposal - British Constitution - Whether it is possible to claim that UK ...

    Literature Review In order to support the hypothesis, a number of selected sources were referred to. There are quite a number of authors who have researched on the need of UK having a written constitution. One such author is Colin R.

  1. Free essay

    The unwritten nature of the British Constitution is not simply an accidental failure to ...

    expand its own powers in the Parliament Act 1949 through the powers it set itself in 1911, and so the 1949 amendments-and the Hunting Act 2004-were thus invalid. Academics such as Wade, a Diceyan, support the claimant's case, as in his view any act is 'political fact' , resulting from

  2. 'The enactment of a codified constitution would transform the British system of government.' Discuss

    transform the current system because our uncodified constitution 'can be stretched or bent to meet emergencies'.25 This allowed the government to quickly ban handguns in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre. Furthermore, the Labour Government would not have been able to carry out its constitutional reform programme under such a

  1. How valid are the arguments against Athenian democracy presented by the Old Oligarch?

    These assumptions make tensions between the upper and lower classes inevitable21, except that occasionally a member of the lower classes may be found who is not populist in outlook22, or a member of the upper classes who is "depraved" enough to prefer life in a democratic state to that in an oligarchic state23.

  2. Is it time to adopt a written constitution?

    7 Any attempt to improve on a system that already works is pointless and may even be detrimental. Written constitutions do not happen by accident. Most states promulgate constitutions following some momentous development, such as revolution, regime change, war or the attainment of independence.8 Such moments require the peoples concerned

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