Should the UK constitution remain uncodified?

by redsox12 (student)

The UK operates under an uncodified constitution. A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of the government, and define the relationship between the state and the individual. There are many types of constitutions, constitutions can be codified or uncodified, unitary or federal and seen as rigid or flexible. The UK would be an example of an uncodified constitution whereas in America, the constitution is codified. There are several arguments for and against having the constitution remain in an uncodified state, some of those are: rigidity, judicial tyranny, legalism, clear rules, limited government, neutral interpretation, education, protecting rights and political bias, yet we will only focus on some of them, but before that, we need to define what an uncodified constitution is.

An uncodified constitution is a constitution that is made up of rules that are found in a variety of sources, in the absence of a single legal document or written constitution. There are 3 key issues that define it, and those are: not authoritative, not entrenched and not judicable.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

There are many arguments that support the view which advocates that the UK should adopt a codified constitution. If a codified constitution is to be introduced, it would affect the power of the government, the relationship between the executive and the parliament, multi-level governance, relationship between judges and politicians and individual rights and freedoms.

A big argument for a codified constitution is that it would make the rules clearer. Constitutional rules are collected together in a single document, therefore very much more clearly defined than in an unwritten constitution, where rules are spread across different documents. A codified constitution ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another argument for a codified constitution is limited government. A codified constitution would cut government down to size. In other words it would end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. A codified constitution would also allow for neutral interpretation. A codified constitution would be policed by senior judges. This makes sure that the provisions of the constitution are properly upheld by other public bodies. Judges act as neutral and impartial constitutional arbiters, as if they are above politics.

A Codified constitution also has educational value. A codified constitution highlights the central values and overall goals of the political system. This strengthens citizenship as it creates a political identity which is very important in a multicultural society. individuals liberty be more protected by a codified constitution because it would define the relationship between the nation and citizens. Rights would be more clearly defined and they would be easier to enforce than the current uncodified constitution that UK possesses. The bill of rights is a good example of this. A bill of rights is a document that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual, and so defines the legal extent of civil liberty.

On the other hand there are many arguments that advocate against the idea of a codified constitution.

Some people believe that codified constitutions are rigid. Higher law is more difficult to change that statute law. It is a lot easier to introduce an Act of Parliament than to amend a constitution. Uncodified constitutions are flexible, because they are not entrenched like codified constitutions. Codified constitutions cannot be changed easily and therefore find it difficult to respond to changing political and social circumstances. Flexibility is very important , useful ability for a constitution to have the modern and a changing environment, being rigid is a major downside to codified constitutions.

In the UK's uncodified constitution, supreme constitutional authority is vested in the elected House of Commons. Changes to the constitution therefore come about due to democratic pressure. Example being the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, because of a growing belief that the unelected second chamber should no longer have the right to block policies of the elected government. Under a codified constitution judges would be the people policing the constitution. A codified constitution would be interpreted in a way that is not subject to public accountability.

Another point that is usually spoken against a codified constitution is that Parliamentary sovereignty would be abolished. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can make unmake and amend any laws. With a codified constitution this would not be possible due to the existence of the constitution and potentially a bill of rights. The reason behind this, is because a codified constitution would act as a form of higher law. This would stand against against representative democracy.

In conclusion, by looking at some of the points for and against a codified constitution, I would say that neither of the choices are right and none of them are wrong, its about what points are the most important to each individual. Personally I would prefer a codified constitution, as I place a big value on the Bill of rights, and individual liberty would be more securely protected in a codified constitution, rights would be clearly more defined.