• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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of the country at present does not coincide with the laws that were made hundreds of years ago, as they are simply out of date and not applicable to today's society.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.

Conclusion

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

    The Constitution of United Kingdom In Comparison with the Constitution of Russia

    4 star(s)

    Conventions prevent them from being individually criticized by MPs. Finally, they can only be dismissed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The Judicial function of the United Kingdom is therefore not assigned to the professional judiciary alone. Many disputes which arise out of the conduct of government are entrusted to administrative tribunals.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    UK constitution

    3 star(s)

    They provide that the executive may do nothing without clear legal authority permitting its actions. It is therefore self-evident that for the rule of law to be effective as a check on the executive, the courts must be able and willing to police rigorously the boundaries of the executive's statutory authority.

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

    to seek permission from any other body, this enables laws to be created or changed relatively easily. States may voluntarily enter into international agreements that limit their power; for example, membership of the United Nations entails accepting the UN charter which imposes limitations on member states' right to go to war.

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

    be a bit misleading, because it gives an implication that the British constitution is supreme. That is far from true because it is the Parliament which is supreme. Such is the case in Barnett's classification, as she refers to the legislative authority being supreme rather than the constitution itself.

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

    So for example a Victorian or authoritarian interpretation differs from a liberal or Whitehall view of the British constitution. However but what are the most important rules of Britain's polity? Even if one would agree that Cabinet is the centre of power, that there were a strict and proper line

  2. Features of a constitution whether written or unwritten, and whether underlying values are better ...

    This is Parliamentary supremacy.� Lastly, civil liberties have been given weight by Statute, since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.�� This gives further legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

  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

    to the hierarchy of laws in the UK, that cannot be amended or repealed by a simple Parliamentary majority. This would at a first glance appear to transform the current arrangements, however the traditional notions that Parliament cannot bind its successors, and that legislation cannot be entrenched are both outdated in light of the 'new view' of PS.

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