Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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"
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billjburton)
    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"
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vnupe)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    In this vein, OP, you might look at Thoburn.
    How are you jj? How are you finding Cambridge? Bristol is challenging and I think I am finally getting a handle on what they are looking for...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vnupe)
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tha_Black_Shinobi)
    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?
    What's good Shinobi!

    Bristol is great! I am enjoying it, it is very different from what I have studied before and I have to learn it in a slightly different way... but I am LOVING IT!. They are working us pretty hard, those seminars are killers; for about a month I was completely lost... I had never studied in a seminar/tutorial system before, so I didn't quite grasp their importance... slowly but surely though the cobwebs disappeared and now I think I have an adequate grasp as to what they are looking for...

    How is Notts treating you?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Don't forget to question the basic premise that the constitution is "unwritten": is it unwritten or uncodified?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vnupe)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vnupe)
    This is talking about Legal Constitutionalism vs. Political Constitutionalism, which obviously discusses Parliamentary Sovereignty or Supremacy.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    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.
    I my view you are making my point, yes all these things are written, no they are not codified, but do they make an actual constitution. Are they the ethos that the nation lives by and turns too when disputes arise... if you believe yes then technically there is a constitution, if you believe no then technically there is not a constitution... I guess I am splitting hairs here, but isnt that what Lawyers do...

    For me we should codify it and get on with it, instead of pulling from here and there, The HRA is Euro driven, the Bill of Rights is from 1689... codify it and be done with it..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qoph)
    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)...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vnupe)
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qoph)
    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?

    I guess you could make that assumption.... In the US the Courts have become a very strong and active third branch of the government because of the codified constitution. They can point to the document and say that something goes against the constitution and then strike down the law. Their opinion definitely counts and holds a significant amount of weight.

    If there was such a seismic shift in this country, then Parliament's sovereignty would be in Jeopardy...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for simplifying it for me.. makes much sense










    (Original post by vnupe)
    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.
    [/QUOTE]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1.
    “The rule of law is a political ideal which a legal system may lack or may possess to a greater or lesser degree. That much is common ground. It is also to be insisted that the rule of law is just one of the virtues which a legal system may possess and by which it is to be judged. It is not to be confused with democracy, justice, equality (before the law or otherwise), human rights of any kind or respect for persons or for the dignity of man” (J Raz, “The rule of law and its virtue” (1977) 93 Law Quarterly Review 195 at 196).

    Critically discuss the above statement, drawing from relevant aspects of the UK Constitution.

    Help please?!!!


    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How does the ECHR and the ECJ bolster legal constitutionalism? thankyouuuuuuu
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qoph)
    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?
    Have a glance at the Public Law textbook by Mark Elliott & Robert Thomas. Good starting point.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.