The Student Room Group

A written constitution?

I'm just about to write an essay on the pros and cons of written and unwritten (or codified and uncodified) constitution for A2 US/UK Comparative politics. Then I thought I might attempt to get you guys to write it for me (is that awfull presumptious? Probably). It seems that a democracy can survive without a written constitution, as the UK does. But at what cost? Americans know their constitution, and as a result know their rights. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the British.

Then again we can change our constitution to suit society, while in the US due to their codified constitution and the amendment process, this is much more difficult. Which is more beneficial? Perhaps the US has a better safeguard against radical legislation.

Please post all thoughts. Thank-you essay writers.

Scroll to see replies

Have a read of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Constitution

Leo-Marcus
I'm just about to write an essay on the pros and cons of written and unwritten (or codified and uncodified) constitution for A2 US/UK Comparative politics. Then I thought I might attempt to get you guys to write it for me (is that awfull presumptious? Probably). It seems that a democracy can survive without a written constitution, as the UK does. But at what cost? Americans know their constitution, and as a result know their rights. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the British.

Then again we can change our constitution to suit society, while in the US due to their codified constitution and the amendment process, this is much more difficult. Which is more beneficial? Perhaps the US has a better safeguard against radical legislation.

Please post all thoughts. Thank-you essay writers.
I don't think it makes much difference as currently in america many executive orders have been passed which violate the constitution. The system which is supposed to guard against unconstitutional laws being passed has been turned on it's head i.e. the legeslative branch is supposed to hold the power but now the executive branch has all the power.
Reply 3
Leo-Marcus
I'm just about to write an essay on the pros and cons of written and unwritten (or codified and uncodified) constitution for A2 US/UK Comparative politics. Then I thought I might attempt to get you guys to write it for me (is that awfull presumptious? Probably). It seems that a democracy can survive without a written constitution, as the UK does. But at what cost? Americans know their constitution, and as a result know their rights. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the British.

Then again we can change our constitution to suit society, while in the US due to their codified constitution and the amendment process, this is much more difficult. Which is more beneficial? Perhaps the US has a better safeguard against radical legislation.

Please post all thoughts. Thank-you essay writers.


There are numerous pros and cons to both sides of the argument. To some extent it could be argued that Britain has been served well by the present uncodified consitution relying more on precedent than written statute. It's considerably more flexible than the codified model and allows the state and government to respond to crises and affairs of state in perhaps a more pragmatic way than that of countries such as America. On the other hand a codified constitution has many merits, people do know exactly where they stand, as do the government. It establishes a clear framework for the affairs of state, governments may come and go but ultimately the constitution remains. It can be a safeguard of citizens rights. Having said all that it is worth remembering that in many codified constitutions there lies a mechanism for the adaptation or in some cases even suspension of the constitution itself. The American constitution for example creates provision for amendments (with the approval of all 3 branches of the federal government) to be made where necessary which to date has occured 27 times in the country's history. If you want a constitution maybe you should blame our forebares for never having a real revolution in Britain :wink: ! Its why we've just slowly adapted our system over the centuries, resulting in the slightly weird and quirky (and at times grossly unfair) system we have today. I think it could be argued that a constitution makes a democracy fairer, but that does not mean to say that a democracy is necessarily undermined by its absence.
I don’t agree with your final statement at all.

The checks and balances system ensures that no one arm of Government is “more powerful” than the others.

For example, the President nominates persons to positions in Government, but the Legislature confirms the appointments, before the nominees are allowed to take up office. The Executive branch signs off Law that are passed by the Legislature. The Supreme Court interprets the law passed by the Legislature, and ensures it is constitutionally legal.

The Legislature also has responsibility for tax, which means the Executive branch can’t really operate as an independent entity, doing what it likes, without the support of the Legislature, because ultimately, the Legislature gives the Executive the money to “operate”.

The reason why the Executive branch appears to be the more “powerful” is because it is the branch of government that is the most heavily scrutinised and covered in the media.

LoveYourSlavery
I don't think it makes much difference as currently in america many executive orders have been passed which violate the constitution. The system which is supposed to guard against unconstitutional laws being passed has been turned on it's head i.e. the legeslative branch is supposed to hold the power but now the executive branch has all the power.
Reply 5
In future, get someone else to do your homework for you.

Written constitutions are necessary to limit the powers of politicians. Government is force, after all.
martynwilliams
I don’t agree with your final statement at all.

The checks and balances system ensures that no one arm of Government is “more powerful” than the others.

For example, the President nominates persons to positions in Government, but the Legislature confirms the appointments, before the nominees are allowed to take up office. The Executive branch signs off Law that are passed by the Legislature. The Supreme Court interprets the law passed by the Legislature, and ensures it is constitutionally legal.

The Legislature also has responsibility for tax, which means the Executive branch can’t really operate as an independent entity, doing what it likes, without the support of the Legislature, because ultimately, the Legislature gives the Executive the money to “operate”.

The reason why the Executive branch appears to be the more “powerful” is because it is the branch of government that is the most heavily scrutinised and covered in the media.


(The language in my previous post is a bit clumsy.)

Yea, that's the idea but in the adminitsration has been using an extreme version of the doctrine known as Unitary Executive Theory. According to a professor in the Department of Political Sciences, Dr. Christopher Kelley. President Bush had used Unitary Executive Theory 95 times when signing legislation into law.
The proper system is also subverted when the president is so secretive that the system of checks and ballances can not work.
Reply 7
zooropa
In future, get someone else to do your homework for you.

Written constitutions are necessary to limit the powers of politicians. Government is force, after all.


Is that a necessity since we have to declare all laws compatible with the ECHR anyway?
Reply 8
Yes.

The Human Rights Act can be arbitrarily repealed by any government though.
Reply 9
zooropa
Yes.

The Human Rights Act can be arbitrarily repealed by any government though.


It's effectively entrenched though, and our election system (and types of parties in britain) make it increasingly unlikely that it would be repealed.

Regardless of this, a written constitution isn't possible to formulate without significant disagreement - I am of the opinion it would just become a watered down document due to the significant disagreement it would entail. I also wonder what the need for it is? We haven't wittnessed, nor are likely to witness some minioryt party somehow via FPTP rising to power and removing all liberties.
corey
We haven't wittnessed, nor are likely to witness some minioryt party somehow via FPTP rising to power and removing all liberties.


Why does it need a minority party to do this when the mainstream parties are perfectly capable of doing this, albeit incrimentaly.
Reply 11

It's effectively entrenched though


Lots of Conservatives want to repeal it.

As government is force, proper limits must be placed upon politicians. Constitutional conventions aren't enough.

We haven't wittnessed, nor are likely to witness some minioryt party somehow via FPTP rising to power and removing all liberties.


Even if they have a theoretical ability to do so, that is unacceptable.

Regardless of this, a written constitution isn't possible to formulate without significant disagreement - I am of the opinion it would just become a watered down document due to the significant disagreement it would entail.


I cannot think of any country whose constitution has been watered down.
zooropa

I cannot think of any country whose constitution has been watered down.



The US constitution has'nt been watered down so much as it has been shreded by the patriot act. Warrentless secret serches, secret detention without trial, secret executions, defining any criminal act endangering human life as terrorism etc...

A parralell legal system for 'terrorists'.

Also FEMA has virtualy unlimited power in the event of an emergency.
Reply 13
zooropa
Lots of Conservatives want to repeal it.


Accepted point. Although, I am of the opinion this would never actually occur. Let's just leave that point there

As government is force, proper limits must be placed upon politicians. Constitutional conventions aren't enough.


We have numerous methods already in place which allow government to be kept in balance, this includes the ablity for courts to delcare a governments actions as 'ultra vires' when they act beyond the law. I would accept that it may be beneficial to extend power to strike down legislation in relation to the ECHR to courts and to have the ECHR entrenched in the same way as a written constitution (although I believe the cultural constraints on it now act in a pretty much similar fashion)

Even if they have a theoretical ability to do so, that is unacceptable.


We both know that the UK doesn't suffer from radical parties with any supoort and that the election system makes it effectively impossible for them to be elected and actually wield any power - so why have all the costs of a wrtten constitution put on us?

I cannot think of any country whose constitution has been watered down.


Trying to reach a consensus within society on what the basis of the constitution would be would prove impossible. You speak of other countries but the setting up of their constitution isn't really analogous to the brand new one we would be address now in an age of a multi-party system.

How would we decide the limit of government power? To what extent they should be separated? Which rights are we entitled to? Do they include social rights or not? What about the welfare state?

These are all questions and issues that would be put within a constitutional document, reaching a cross party consensus would be near impossible due to the radically different views people have - this ins turn would lead to a watering down of the constitution resulting a document that wouldn't achieve the bold aims you want from it.

Its not really an analogous claim, as most of the countries we are talking about have long established traditions of constitutions
Reply 14
It's doubtful that the UK will repeal the HRA in the near future in a proper way - but the chances of creating a law with the intention to violate the ECHR is fairly likely, in which case the new law will have effect.

Also the UK is currently derogating from several (?) articles of the ECHR anyway. What's the point in having rights if a statutory instrument can take them away?
Reply 15
I understand what people are saying about a written constitution being unnecessary. It would cause a great deal of hassle, and would have trouble getting a concensus across the parties. It is the nature of British government that has given us a society without a constitution - we almost unique amongst democracies in this sense.

However, I don't think constitutions are created on the basis of practicalities. They exist to represent and to defend principles. We need a constitution because they signify democracies - we encourage them in Iraq and Afghanistan and every other country we've had our dirty little paws in, but we won't accept it for ourselves.

It's true that there's little chance of any third parties getting into power and undoing our fragile framework of government. But this true for numerous places with constitutions - that is rather the point, that they act a safeguard against eventualities that may come to pass. The improbability of these occurrences is far outweighed by the consequences of them coming to pass. We do not know what the future of this country holds - one way that we can attempt to ensure the UK is tethered to certain foundations is through the necesity of a written constitution.
Reply 16
What about the welfare state?


There's nothing in the US constitution about a welfare state.

Few constitutions outline what the provision of a welfare state would be. Provisions for a welfare state would be made by whatever powers the legislature is given.
Reply 17
As a further point to consider, does the distinction between unwritten and written actually affect democracy? After all, every constitution has some written aspect to it. The essenital aspect here is what is contained in the constitution. Principles, rather than form.
Reply 18
Certainly. I believe the only countries without codified constitutions these days are the United Kingdom and Israel - both are democratic and quite 'free' states.

Compare that to Zimbabwe - I bet they've got a written constitution.
Reply 19
Leo-Marcus
As a further point to consider, does the distinction between unwritten and written actually affect democracy? After all, every constitution has some written aspect to it. The essenital aspect here is what is contained in the constitution. Principles, rather than form.


The USSR under Stalin had a written constitution. But that country has hardly a bastion of liberal democracy.

I'd prefer the UK to have a written constitution, since government must be limited as it's force.

Latest