Should constitution can be elaborated and approved by

Should the United Kingdom adopt a written constitution?It is popularly believed that the United Kingdom  has  an uncodified constitution comprising several sources. There are those who suggest it should be codified and others who support that it should not be changed and stay the same. First things first lets clarify what is a constitution? In short Constitution is the fundamental law upon which the formation of the entire legislation of a country is based on, the rights and obligations of the citizen, the organisation and basic rules of state and institution operation.The constitution can be elaborated and approved by a constitutional assembly (a delegation of the people) or a sum of laws or other provisions that over time have become fundamental.  Present constitutions tend to be writen files, as mentioned by Adam Tomkins in Public law, written constitutions are not created by accident. Specifically revolutions, alongside independence, helped form constitutions which are reforming the country. Few of the countries worldwide without a codified constitution are Israel, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. As the word is currently standing, constitutions do not necessarily have to be democratic. Totalitarian states like Belarus  North Korea or Saudi Arabia have a constitution or a set of basic laws which underpin their governance. Constitutions are not always abided by equality, but more likely equity.       The debate over the codification of the British constitution has gone through many levels in the past thirty years. The United Kingdom’s  constitution has some advantages, particularly in terms of promoting democracy, transparency and accountability. As an uncodified constitution, the United Kingdom’s Constitution is somewhat flexible, can easily evolve and have proven to adapt to changing seasons and situations. Moreover, it is observed that the traditional laws in the British constitution do not prevent the country’s growth. This flexibility of the uncodified constitution stabilises the state. Also taking into consideration that there are democratic processes that protect this constitution, together with both the legal body and the parliament, make it flourish in the modern United Kingdom state. Contrary to the uncodified constitution, the codified constitution is rather inflexible and rendered difficult to modification. Actually, a glance in a such constitutional model, reveals the inaction of acts in changing insufficient laws. Apart from this flexibility of the uncodified constitution seated the conventions and the judicial crisis are somewhat sensitive in social changes. The judges have the opportunity to reflect on the law, upon certain social factors that might come up, allowing in the judicial system to extend itself freely.  Despite the advantages of the uncodified constitution, there are limits to its superiority. First of all, an uncodified constitution is equivocal and  unclear. It is full of  doubts, as a result, containing some elements of contradictions. Since it is very easy to achieve changes in a political system with an unwritten constitution, many undesirable changes occur resulting in a lot of instability. Moreover, it does not express clearly the fundamental rights of individuals. They can not enjoy their freedoms and can not participate actively in the democratic process. Therefore, an unwritten constitution is not good for democracy, it is superfluous to say that an uncodified constitution is not good for a legislative system, does not provide an appropriate division of powers between judicial and legislative units. Because of this, there are many disagreements between the central government and state or provincial governments. In conclusion although the UK constitution is primarily based on the separation of powers, in reality the composition of Parliament shows that the principle is not respected because most  of ministers are members of the elected party, the executive is basically a part of the legislature, the highest source of law in the UK.Without much Clarity it is not clear when the administration has acted unconstitutionally. For example, conventions on policy-making rationality are unclear. There is no authority to investigate the power of the state and defend civil liberties. Also the concentration of power is dangerously at the center. Few defensive meters against the unpredictable exercise of state power. strong majority administration can detour through legislation without much debate. Furthermore it is undemocratic, due to the fact that conventions are outdated and unclear, most commonly the royal privilege. House of Lords also has a lack of democracy.      In the other hand some people support that the uk constitution must be contified, lets analyze the merits and demerits of written constitution. In the first place part of the advantage of a codified constitution is its comprehension of the fine prints. Liberal upholders of codified constitution have commendated its predictability. Which means that whoever is subject to the constitution is fully aware of its concepts and terms. This definition makes it less complicated for judges to supervise the adoption of the most recent laws. A method known as judicial evaluation sees judges voting whether new laws are constitutional right or not. this saves the constitutional from any new law that can also endanger it. Moreover, one of the most  significant reasons for the codification of the Constitution is that it will provide a clearer and more reachable description of the fundamental rules and principles under which the state is established and governed {Bogdanor Khaitan and Vogenauer 2007. Moreover, a written constitution provides the governor of a state, with a set of rules that he is is obligated to follow, therefore by acknowledging his rights and obligations, prevent him from going off board.A  disadvantage againts a written constitution ,is that it would be exceptionally tough to create it, of course  to codify the existing set of rules, the vastness of the current system would be a major problem for the new constitutional authors, specifically what need to be included and what to omit. Moreover non-constitutional countries like United Kingdom, for example, have been casted aspersions on the amount of discretion granted to their ruling party and even their individual prime ministers under their current systems. Critics of codified constitution, said the UK Prime Minister, is in a position to impose changes to the law through parliament as part of an individual effort to change the laws of the land. That would be impossible under a codified constitution where the burden of proof is put on the government to justify restrictions    Even though, the United Kingdom is growing in a peaceful way with almost no main internal turmoil. The gradual development of a constitution has spurred the non violent in the the country or the dearth of uprising reduces the want for codification is a question of wondering. But it is obvious that  the current condition of constitutional affairs has been running efficaciously for over three hundred years. converting it only for the purpose of exchange is, at satisfactory, unreasonable. The argument that an exchange must be made as “times are changing” is inherently logically wrong. Times change since the creation of the universe and the syntax evolve as and when required. Moreover, it isn’t uncooperative to declare that the fact that the current constitutional arrangements are three hundred years old  is a significant importance in itself. Moreover  The advancing character of the British constitution signify that it is relatively effortless to add recently developed constitutional laws and adjust to the changing seasons. Nonetheless, one of the blemishes is that it is not so easy to access a single written legal paper. Without limiting a written social code, Britain has been able to keep up to date with the times and has an important ability to adapt its old practises to meet new demands. Britain has a long and constant national past, and the origins of legal practice go back as far as the Kings of the Saxons who governed England prior to the 1070 seizure of the Normans. There has been a great custom of strong central authority going back to the Tudors, its reversals constitutional development of the 17th century were mostly serene and evolving. Furthermore one of the most principal and repeated disagreements opposed to the election of a written legal paper in the United Kingdom is that “if it does not break, then do not fix it”.  Any attempt to upgrade a network that is already in place is futile and it may even be damaging, as Professor Barber mentioned, that: “The UK Constitution is generally successful, it has established a stable government and, in terms of democracy, transparency, human rights and social provision.  The constitutional rules of the United Kingdom have worked and were of use to us for hundreds of years, so if a written constitution needs to be adopted, it is still being discussed.As an alternative, the objective is that the legal papers are governed from judges, which means that subjects will depend on non-elected judges in Britain and take power away from our voted candidates. If Britain takes on a written constitution like the United States, then the question that emerges is whether it will continue to walk behind America’s footsteps and considers the United Kingdom Supreme Court as the ultimate exhibitor of the concept of constitution. This would mean that if the voted candidates in parliament argue with the constitutional right of the Supreme Court, they will not be able to change this judicial evaluation unless they have successfully adopted a constitutional revision. In addition, to a written and codified  constitution is in fact a innovative way of aiming and making clear the rules and proclamations of a land, but this is only suitable under the right conditions. Even the narrowest, most thorough written constitution can not contain every last attribute or procedure of a legislative structure, also most uncodified and unwritten constitutions incorporate at least some regulative law or other written terms.Under the discussion, if Britain should take on a written constitution, the answer that arises is that the united Kingdom must no longer aim for a written constitution, because of its past, the origins and concepts of the constitution, along with the practical strains that could result from its codification. The differences between written and unwritten constitutions stated above are highly exploratory rather than real. Although the majority of the countries have opted for a written constitution, it is not necessarily superior to an unwritten constitution. On the contraty, other countries with a legal paper, tend to have poorly performing governments, that sneak up on the rights of their subjects. Furthermore, people inside the United Kingdom have their right protected, unlike other countries, that favor a written charter. Based on the statements above and having examined the advantages and disadvantages of each party there is no essential need to make any changes in the current system.


I'm Mack!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out