Public Law Coursework. Help!!

Having a bit of trouble starting on my constitutional rights cwk. Just seeing if anyone could give me some pointers of how to get started. Question's below! Cheers!

"the unwritten nature of the British consitution is not simply an accidental failure to codify. It expresses a commitment to keeping the law subordinate to politics"

Finally I would mention the ongoing conflict about Parliamentary Sovereignty and the ever increasing involvement of the ECHR and ECJ... and how they bolster Judicial review and legal constitutionalism...

Hope this helps as a jumping off point... Good luck

In this vein, OP, you might look at Thoburn.

This is talking about Legal Constitutionalism vs. Political Constitutionalism, which obviously discusses Parliamentary Sovereignty or Supremacy.

I would start by defining each form of constitutionalism contrasting and comparing the two, then talk about Dicey and the historical view about Parliamentary Supremacy, I would then mention Jackson and Factortame I & II and the advance and rise of Judicial Review and the Rule of Law. I would specifically mention Lord Steyn and Lord Hope's dicta in Jackson and weave that into your narrative to combat this form of thinking. Finally I would mention the ongoing conflict about Parliamentary Sovereignty and the ever increasing involvement of the ECHR and ECJ... and how they bolster Judicial review and legal constitutionalism...

Hope this helps as a jumping off point... Good luck

Lol. You have basically helped me decide the issues for my piece of public law coursework as well, although its a different question they basically require the same things. How is Bristol anyway? Hardly see you post anymore, are they really working you that hard lol?

Don't forget to question the basic premise that the constitution is "unwritten": is it unwritten or uncodified?

Wouldn't you consider it unwritten? Is there is a constitution? Isnt it just a collection of law/case precedents, which we construe as a constitution/guide?

Though I do see your point about unwritten vs. codified, but I for one am on the fence... and like to play devil's advocate... hehehe

This is talking about Legal Constitutionalism vs. Political Constitutionalism, which obviously discusses Parliamentary Sovereignty or Supremacy.

It's hard to argue that the HRA, Bill of Rights, Parliament Acts, Constitution Reform Act, and so forth aren't part of the UK constitution--and obviously these statutes are written. I tend to side on the uncodified aspect, as many parts of the constitution (with the obvious exception of conventions) are in writing, but they are not in one place.

Hm, may I ask what is the main difference between Legal Constitutionalismand Political Constitutionalism? Does Legal Constitutionalism refer to the view that fundamental rights and democracy would be better protected by a codified constitution, whereas Political Constitutionalism defends the status quo?
I am just not familiar with these terms.

In a nutshell Legal Constitutionalist believe that The Rule of Law is sovereign and Political Constitutionalist believe that Parliament is sovereign. There is not denying the bolstering of the Legal constitutionalist viewpoint, with the increasing dominance of Europe (EHRC and ECJ) in UK politics and governance it is the courts that have benefited... but for my Money Parliament is still sovereign, because what Parliament giveth they can also take away (to an extent)... Parliament make the statutes (laws) and is pro-active, the Courts through Judicial view etc is reactive and really parliament can dis-regard their rulings (to an extent)...

Ok, thank you very much for your explanation.
Am I then right that Legal Constitutionalists rather support a codified constitution, whereas Political Constitutionalist are afraid that such a constitution could infringe the sovereignty of Parliament?

If this was my piece of coursework, I would :

Define Royal consent

Then discuss why it is or isn't objectionable… but I would initially take a position on whether it is or it isn't

Then I would define what is meant by the rule of law

Reference Tom Bingham, and compare his writing/philosophy with my position. If distinctions exist then tackle or discuss those distinction

Do the same with another academic theorist on the rule of law (preferably one with an opposite perspective to Bingham, and compare and contrast their philosophy with mine and juxtapose it against Bingham highlighting which I agreed with and why…


And then conclude as to why I believe what I believe and why, while also demonstrating while I am in disagreement with which ever theorist



QUOTE=sabrinaj;51296637]hey.. could anyone help me with my public law coursework..
im a first year law student
never studied law before and don't have a law background
stressed already and dunno where to begin..
could anyone simplify it for me??


‘Royal consent is objectionable because it breaches the rule of law.’
Discuss this statement with reference to Tom Bingham and at least one other academic theorist of the rule of law.

Ok, thank you very much for your explanation.
Am I then right that Legal Constitutionalists rather support a codified constitution, whereas Political Constitutionalist are afraid that such a constitution could infringe the sovereignty of Parliament?