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

Authors Avatar by gilbert123 (student)

Josh Cotton HRS

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

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. There are many types of constitution. Constitutions can be codified, un-codified, Unitary and Federal and they can be seen as rigid or flexible. The most common way of classifying constitutions is codified or un-codified (written and unwritten). The United Kingdom is a good example of an un-codified constitution and the United States of America is an example of a codified constitution.

A codified or unwritten constitution is a constitution in which the key rules and regulations are collected within one single legal document. The terms of the constitution are said to be ‘entrenched’ meaning that the rules or provisions of the outlined within the constitution are hard to amend or abolish. This is why people often refer to codified constitutions as being rigid. On the other hand there are codified constitutions (which is what the United Kingdom currently has). Un-codified or unwritten constitutions do not have all of their rules and regulations composed in one single document. Its rules are found in a variety of sources, in absence of a legal document. Un-codified constitutions are not entrenched. The constitution can be changed through the normal processes for enacting statue law.

On the one hand there are many arguments that support the view that the United Kingdom should adopt a codified constitution. If a codified constitution were introduced to the United Kingdom, it would affect many features of government. It would affect: the power of the government, the relationship between the executives and parliament and many others. One argument is that a codified constitution would make the rules much clearer. Key constitutional rules and provisions are collected in a single legal document, in a codified constitution they would be more clearly defined than in a un-codified constitution where the rules are spread across several different documents. A codified would create less confusion about the meaning of the terms of the constitution and would ensure a greater chance of these rules being enforced. For example it could be argued that with a constitutional reform, the sovereign powers would be outlined clearly, defining the relationship between Westminster and the devolved assemblies. 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.

Join now!

Another argument in favour of adopting a codified constitution is the limited government. Adopting a codified constitution would cut the government down in size. A codified constitution would theoretically end parliamentary sovereignty and elective dictatorship. Elective dictatorship is a constitutional imbalance in which the executive power is checked only by the needs of governments to win elections. In the United Kingdom it is reflected by the ability of the government to act in any way and pass any laws it wants. An example of elective dictatorship would be the fact that Margret Thatcher was only defeated four times in eleven ...

This is a preview of the whole essay