I have a debate coming up in a few days on whether or not Britain should have a codified constitution. I'm expecting that the opposition will bring up the lack of flexibility as a problem area, however I just read this in a lecture by Lord Scarman.
"The Americans, who have 200 years experience of a written constitution, are careful so to confine their constitution. A good illustration is their civil rights legislation, which is ordinary statute law but founded on the constitution, which of course itself contains a Bill of Rights. The value of building ordinary legislation on the foundation of the constitution is immense: for ordinary legislation can be repealed or amended by ordinary majority voting as and when circumstances so require. One can change the style, the character, even the very shape of the law to meet the changing needs of society so long as the new structures of law and practice continue to rest securely and firmly upon the fundamental principles embodied in the constitution."
Was just wondering if someone could point me to some websites/give me a better understanding of this process? From what I understand it seems to advocate a way of having a codified constitution whilst still maintaining the flexibility of an uncodified one.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Turn on thread page Beta
Debate on the UK constitution - need help with US constitution! watch
- Thread Starter
- 26-01-2010 19:47