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

Explain the arguments for and against introducing a codified constitution

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain the arguments for and against introducing a codified constitution. Discuss. Ursula Oliver 12RJ At present, the UK's constitution is uncodified or de facto; there is no single document though the majority of Britain's constitution lies in written form of acts, court judgments and treaties. The foundation of British constitution is the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty where acts passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. Therefore, simply by passing an Act, Parliament has power to change the constitution. This has caused debate over whether this uncodified constitution is seen as flexible or a liability to the UK. Some people wish to recover the constitution by introducing a codified constitution which is entrenched, whereas others such as Conservative leader David Cameron believe a British Bill of Rights alongside or instead of the Human Rights Act is best whilst maintaining an uncodified constitution. Arguments for introducing a codified constitution usually suggest that the introduction would help to correct imbalances in the current political system. This refers mainly to the second chamber and considering the constitutional status the House of Lords holds, whilst also allowing a discussion over the relation between the executive and legislature. ...read more.

Middle

With an entrenched constitution, like in the US, our rights would be more accessible. At present, where it is unwritten, it isn't known so people are reliant on the government to remain playing by unwritten rules. If we were to become more aware of our rights, we would be more likely to claim them, too. Some feel it would be safer and more democratic for a definitive on constitutional arrangements and procedures and law to be limited. Therefore, it seems there is a demand for our constitution to become codified in order to protect our rights and strengthen the constitution in case of constitutional crisis. However, it is argued that these demands for a codified constitution come from academics rather than the people, without real need. Britain has not undergone a constitutional crisis of any sort like Germany and Japan after the Second World War, and the only time there would be a need for a written document would be if Scotland became independent. At present, the people seem broadly satisfied that the nature of government is legitimate and creating a codified constitution could easily widen divisions instead of healing them. ...read more.

Conclusion

Taking everything into consideration, I refer back to the proposal of introducing a British Bill of Rights. This can create a common bond, a unifying force, unlike a codified constitution which would only create greater divisions. Building on the Human Rights Act, a Bill of Rights gives further effect to principles like the Magna Carta which is still relevant to modern situations where social mobility and diversity is increasing. Those concerned with the lack of knowledge over rights would be at rest as a Bill of Rights also ensures individuals are given a clearer idea of what to expect from public authorities and each other. This increases citizenship and gives room for educational improvement as well covering economic and social rights which are not recognised under the Human Rights Act. Linking peoples rights and responsibilities and highlighting the differences, a Bill of Rights ensures a flexible and adaptable constitution remains and can often be seen as "Human Rights Act plus". Therefore it does not create unnecessary debate over a codified constitution and its funding issues nor does it conceal people's rights. ...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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

Overall this essay shows evidence of knowledge and understanding. There are some good ideas put forward in this essay but the limited evaluation of the points made hinders the development of a good argument. It would be better to have argument followed by counter argument, rather than listing all the arguments for and then all the arguments against.

***

Marked by teacher Jessica Jung 07/04/2012

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. How Effectively Are Rights Protected In The UK?

    Some high profile cases in the 1980s (Ponting, Spycatcher) have shown how pliable some members of the judiciary were. Since the 1990s there has emerged a new breed of judge. These judges have often come into conflict with governments in the courts over issues of sentencing or through the increasing use of judicial review.

  2. The comparison of the US President and the British Prime Minister appears from the ...

    since they have a wider remit to evidence due to their extensive finance and freedom of information laws, added to this is the apparent lack of government secrecy on a scale such as that displayed in Britain. The investigations carried out by such bodies often gain public attention and mass

  1. Is Britain an elective dictatorship?

    For example in the case of the Common Agricultural Policy in 1997, parliament was not involved. Pressure groups have also meant that the executive has gained more power and dominance as they have often received advice from pressure groups resulting in increasing popularity within the executive.

  2. Should the UK have a codified constitution?

    This would protect British citizens from dictatorship, which many could argue, is in place now. Parliamentary sovereignty defines the politics of the UK; any laws passed are in effect, changes to the constitution. Until the creation of the coalition in May 2010, most governments were the majority party in parliament,

  1. How effective is parliament at holding the executive to account?

    Also MPs have limited time and resources. As well as this the party whips easily influence the committee and therefore not reflecting the true view of the committee. The final way in which the executive is held to account is by the House of Lords. The House of Lords scrutinises proposed legislation.

  2. How successfully does Parliament perform its representative functions in Modern Britain?

    There are 2 types of bills that can be passed, Private bills and public bills. Public bills are bills that can be generalised. These can be introduced by individual MPs/Lords (Private Members Bills) or they can be proposed by government ministers.

  1. The strengths of the UK constitution outweigh the weaknesses. Do you agree?

    Changes to the constitution therefore come about due to democratic pressure. For example, the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 beacauseofa growing belief that an unelected second chamber should no longer have the right to block policies of the elected government.

  2. The British Constitution is no longer fit for purpose. Discuss.

    giving immense power to the nine judges nominated for life by the president. In the UK judges can only issue a declaration of incompatibility, but cannot strike it down, so if parliament wishes they can ignore the declaration, and retain parliamentary sovereignty.

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