Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

AQA AS Politics GovP2 09/06/16 Official Thread

Scroll to see replies

Can someone please lay out a clear "for" and "against" argument for an I codified constitution? For a 4 clear paragraph essay please!

this is a article to read for about it:

Yes – Our uncodified constitution makes it difficult to learn about our rights, and how government works.
In America it is relatively easy for school pupils to learn about their system of government and their constitutional
rights because all of the necessary information is contained in their codified constitution. The first articles establishand explain the powers of the different branches of government, while the Bill of Rights explains the rights of thepeople. In contrast, our uncodified constitution has so many different sources, including statute laws, common law,unwritten conventions, EU law and authoritative texts, that it is much harder for the public to understand.However… the introduction of the Cabinet Manual in 2011, and Human Rights Act (1998) has helped.The Cabinet Manual has unofficially codified many of the most important rules and conventions that the governmentoperates by, and, while it has not been approved by Parliament and does not have clear legal standing, it is the mostofficial resource produced. It was particularly useful when the media was speculating over the outcome of a hungParliament in the build-up to the 2010 general election. Similarly, the Human Rights Act (1998) has given UK citizensa clear and concise list of rights, which can be defended in UK courts. However, these rights are not fundamental law,and the UK Supreme Court cannot strike down any laws that undermine them.Yes - We are overly reliant on unwritten conventions that are not legally enforceable, and few understand.The Government argued that the House of Lords had broken multiple unwritten conventions, including the SalisburyConvention and the Common’s ‘financial privilege’, when the House voted to block its tax credit reforms in 2015. Manyin the Lords, however, took an entirely different view, leading to a brief constitutional crisis in which, ultimately, theGovernment backed down. As the 2015 Strathclyde Report argues, the problem with relying upon unwrittenconventions, rather than a legally enforceable codified constitution, is that “Parliament itself sometimes forgets whyparticular conventions exist or the implications of casting them aside.” While many unwritten conventions have beenobserved and followed for centuries, they are not legally enforceable. It is arguably unacceptable that matters asimportant as the role of the monarchy, the use of ancient prerogative powers, and the circumstances in which the UKenters into armed conflict, are left to unwritten conventions that could ultimately be broken. In recent years there hasbeen a developing convention that the prime minister seek Parliament’s approval before ordering military actionoverseas. Yet, in 2015, David Cameron ordered drone strikes in Syria without first consulting Parliament.However…conventions are not often broken, offer a degree of flexibility, and are arguably inevitable.The strength of many conventions in the UK is evident by how rarely they are broken – they often stand the test oftime and are respected and upheld. It is not necessarily the case that a codified constitution would be more reliable, orthat it would prevent conventions from developing in the first place. The US constitution, whilst codified, does notcover absolutely every eventuality. As such, many conventions have developed, some of which are so significant thatmany Americans believe that they are in the constitution. For example, the Constitution does not mention the USCabinet. The fact that presidents meet the heads of the 15 executive departments is governed entirely by convention.Yes – A codified constitution is needed to establish a proper separation of powers.The US Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers. Any members of the executive branch cannot also bemembers of the legislative branch, meaning the President can propose bills, but is unable to vote in Congress. BothHouses of Congress must agree on bills for them to become law, and the Supreme Court can strike down laws thatconflict with fundamental constitutional laws. In contrast, our executive and legislative branches are fused, with theprime minister and other government ministers able to sit and vote in the House of Commons. The House of Lordscan only delay bills, and has even more limited power over ‘money bills’. The Supreme Court cannot strike down lawsdue to Parliamentary sovereignty and our lack of fundamental laws. A new codified constitution could more clearlyseparate power between the three branches of government, creating new, stronger, checks and balances.However… a stronger separation of powers could lead to gridlock and judicial activism.The US has a much clearer separation of powers, but this can soon lead to unproductive gridlock when the presidentand Congress, or the two houses of Congress, cannot reach an agreement. Any attempt to weaken the government’sinfluence in the House of Commons, or to strengthen the House of Lords, could make it much harder for electedgovernments to carry out their manifesto. A codified constitution would also politicise the judiciary, which would needto interpret the language of the static, codified constitution, and determine whether laws are constitutional. This couldlead to accusations of judicial activism, where unelected judges are accused of using questionable interpretations ofthe constitution to promote their own political agenda. As many of the US Supreme Court’s decisions have proven tobe extremely divisive, it may be better for our democratically elected politicians to lead in policy making.

© Jake York, 2016, Pre-chewed® Education Limited
Pre-chewed® Education is a registered UK Limited Liability Company
No – The flexibility of our uncodified constitution is an important asset.
The US codified constitution has only been amended 27 times since 1787, and ten of these amendments were made
in 1791, to include the Bill of Rights. In contrast, the UK constitution has evolved throughout history, and, due toParliamentary sovereignty, continues to be regularly amended, to meet the changing expectations of citizens. Since1997 there have been a wide range of significant constitutional reforms made in response to public pressure, includingthe devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the passage of the Human Rights Act (1998).Our uncodified constitution also gives Parliament the flexibility to respond to crises, without being limited by higherconstitutional laws. In America, the constitutional right to own weapons has made it difficult for Congress to respond toan increasing number of mass shootings. In contrast, Parliament reacted to the 1996 Dunblane School shooting byswiftly banning the majority of handguns in England, Scotland and Wales, as supported by a majority of the public. Associety continues to change at a rapid pace, a codified constitution could soon become out of date.However… this flexibility arguably allows Parliament to make significant constitutional reforms too easily.The US Constitution is intentionally difficult to amend, requiring a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, andthree-quarters of States to approve. The Founding Fathers of the US wanted to ensure that amendments wouldreceive intensive scrutiny and would not undermine the Constitution’s fundamental principles. They wanted toentrench particular ideas and principles that many Americans consider to be as relevant today as they were back in

the 18th Century. In contrast, the UK Parliament can amend the constitution by simply passing a bill. An unwritten
convention has begun to develop where referendums are held to approve significant constitutional reforms. However,
as a convention, there is no guarantee that this additional step will always be taken. Eurosceptics might argue that
reforms as significant the 2009 Lisbon Treaty should face a much more rigorous approval process than other bills.No - The Human Rights Act (1998) has already strengthened our rights.The Human Rights Act (1998) allows the Supreme Court to issue a “declaration of incompatibility” when lawsundermine human rights. Parliamentary sovereignty means that it is then up to Parliament to decide how to respond.However, past experience has shown that, politically, it is not easy to ignore these declarations, and Parliament hastended to swiftly approve whatever changes are necessary to make the law compatible. Therefore, while the UK lacksfundamental laws, the courts are able to use the list of rights contained in the ECHR to challenge legislation. Similarly,just as US legislators must ensure that bills comply with the US Constitution, UK Ministers must submit a ‘statement ofcompatibility’, explaining how their bill is compatible the ECHR. Although these statements are not legally binding, it

still suggests that Parliament is behaving as if the HRA is fundamental law, even if legally it is the same as any other.
However… these rights are not entrenched, and could soon be changed Parliament.
In the US, the Bill of Rights lists the rights belonging to the people and the Supreme Court can strike down laws that
undermine them. But, in the UK, our Supreme Court cannot strike down laws that are ‘unconstitutional’ because welack a codified constitution and Parliament is sovereign, able to pass or repeal any law. Some critics argue that thismakes it hard for the Supreme Court to uphold our rights. Judges can issue declarations of incompatibility, but it isthen up to Parliament to decide how to respond. Equally, campaigns to ‘save’ the Human Rights Act (1998) are areminder that that while the law usefully codifies many of our rights, it does not entrench them. Some campaignersargue that whilst the UK has an uncodified constitution, a majority government can amend our rights all too easily.No – Our constitution has yet to provoke a national crisis; it is an unnecessary risk to abandon it now.Most of the codified constitutions that exist in other nations were written at a time of revolution, national crisis, or thegranting of independence. None of these circumstances currently exist in the UK, and, as a result, we would bechoosing to abandon a constitution that has served us well for centuries at a time of relative calm and prosperity.When our main political parties cannot even agree on how to reform the House of Lords, what chance is there that theofficials drafting the new constitution would be able to swiftly and effectively agree on issues as contentious as the roleof the monarchy, human rights, or the EU? Given the sheer amount of time and resources that would be required towrite and debate a new constitution, which would then require lengthy consultations and likely a referendum, wouldour time would be better spent focussing on other pressing issues, like the economy, and threats to national security?However… the rate of recent constitutional reforms has arguably increased the need for a new constitution.While the UK is not on the verge of revolution, it is arguable that recent constitutional reforms, such as devolution, ourmembership of the EU, and the Human Rights Act, have fundamentally undermined core principles of the UKconstitution (Parliamentary sovereignty and the unitary state). It is arguably time to draw up a new, clear codifiedconstitution that can make sense of these incomplete reforms, and their unintended consequences – like, for example,
the West-Lothian Question.

Reply 141

Sabnamraii

Original post by lascroger thatelles101

give me 10 minutes

Ahh thank you! Roger that

Reply 142

Jordana_ajiboye

Original post by govandpolitics

what are the constraints on parliamentary soverignty

This would include mentioning

EU laws and treaties ex European Communites act 1972 for and against
Judiciary it can declare acts of parliament as unlawful ex Hawkes v. Secretary of Justice on the basis of common law and HRA 1998 for and against

Parliament is controlled by the government the government is controlled by the party the party is controlled by cabinet and cabinet is controlled by the Prime Minister this shows that Parliament doesn't really have parliamentary sovereignty as the Prime Minister controls what happens in Parliament and in Government. conclusion

Format
4 paragraphs
and a conclusion

Reply 143

lascelles101

Original post by Sabnamraii

Ahh thank you! Roger that

heres the essay plan

constitution essay plan.docx22.0KB

Reply 144

lascelles101

Original post by lascelles101

heres the essay plan

blogaspolitics.blogspot.com
this is my blog look on it there's some essays there and other resources

Reply 145

sazriah

Original post by lascelles101

political sovereignty is where people who ultimate power as we can vote parliament out, whereas parliamentary soveightry is where parliament has all power as they make law and it cannot bind and future parliaments

thank you

Reply 146

lascelles101

Original post by sazriah

thank you

that's fine if u need any defininitions check out blogaspolitics.blogspot.com

Reply 147

Baghel

How is the Constitution becoming increasingly Codified ? 25 Mark.

Need a rough Plan, Please Help !

Reply 148

Sabnamraii

Original post by lascelles101

heres the essay plan

It says an error occurred when opening this document :/

Reply 149

Sabnamraii

Original post by lascelles101

heres the essay plan

Never mind- it's working now. Thank you! And good luck everyone, hope we smash the exam! Hulk smash it! 😜💪

Reply 150

lascelles101

Original post by Sabnamraii

Never mind- it's working now. Thank you! And good luck everyone, hope we smash the exam! Hulk smash it! 😜💪

good luck

Reply 151

lascelles101

Original post by Sabnamraii

It says an error occurred when opening this document :/

if it doesn't work again try out blogaspolitics.blogspot.com

Reply 152

Jordana_ajiboye

Original post by Baghel

How is the Constitution becoming increasingly Codified ? 25 Mark.

Need a rough Plan, Please Help !

Separation of powers how the judiciary has become more independent and no longer fusion of powers as branches of government now have a system of checks and balances where the legislature can make checks on the executive ex. can reject legislation made by the executive ex 2010 Reducing tax rate by 10%.The prime minister now has the roles that are similar to the US president due to the monarch being seen as the figure head of the UK the president is now given the principles of the US Constitution (royal prerogative) this means it can exercise powers on the behalf of the government such as to make treaties and declare war ex Mastricht treaty, treaty of rome etc.The constitutional reform of 2005; house of lords reform getting rid of life peers hereditary peers so they now had seats based on votes this was the house of lords act 1999.on the other hand not codified due to judiciary not being able to declare acts of parliament not unconstitutional but unlawful this means it has to violate the HRA 1998 and Parliament doesn't really need to actRights aren't entrenched HRA 1998 can be overcome by Acts of Parliament due to parliamentary sovereignty like USA bill of rights Not really a separation of powers as the judiciary cant really limit the executive or the legislature and they can't limit them either.conclusion: Can't be codified due to it being unwritten making the process of change faster and less checks and balances as the constitution is flexible so no need for a long amendment process ex usa 2/3 votes in congress and ratification by states 3/4 this is due to UK's rights being flexible and unentrenched therefore due to it being unwritten cant be codified or become codified as rights arent protected by being rigid and entrenched.

Reply 153

lascelles101

THECONSTITUTION Q SHOULD BE UNCODIFIED/CODIFIED CONSTITUTION, PARLIAMENT Q SHOULDBE HOL REFORMS AND CORE EXECUTIVE Q SHOULD BE POWER OF PM IS TOO POWERFUL

articles attached

Does the House of Lords need further reform 2016.pdf96.1KB

Does the UK need a codified constitution 2016.pdf106.6KB

Is the Prime Minister too powerful 2016.pdf98.1KB

Reply 154

lascelles101

Original post by Jordana_ajiboye

go onto this blog it is the most recent post

Original post by lascelles101

if it doesn't work again try out blogaspolitics.blogspot.com

Reply 155

lascelles101

Original post by Jordana_ajiboye

look at this article as well

constitutonal_reform_since_1997_has_not_gone_far_enough_2016.pdf127.0KB

Reply 156

Sademajek

Original post by Baghel

How is the Constitution becoming increasingly Codified ? 25 Mark.

Need a rough Plan, Please Help !

I've answered the question if you go onto page 5 or 6 i think i put an essay there

Reply 157

mg1234

So what questions are likely to come up? Ive seen the 5/10/25 mark predictions are on parliament and parliamentary reform and the cabinet. But there are no predictions for the 45 markers and I'm wondering what could come up?