This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

politics question on the british constitution

i barely have any notes on the strengths of our current constitution just the obvious points can anyone delve deeper into this topic, i'd appreciate it so much!?

Reply 1

mellow-yellow

1

ComebackQueen

i barely have any notes on the strengths of our current constitution just the obvious points can anyone delve deeper into this topic, i'd appreciate it so much!?

Ok, these are my revision notes from last year AS Politics on the Constitution. There's nothing there that directly answers your question, but you can probably deduce something from them :biggrin:

Hope this helps!

Btw if you want any help or any more notes just let me know, cos I know how much there is to revise for Politics.

What is a constitution?
• “A social contract between the people and their government” (McNaughton) which underpins the workings of a political system.
• It sets out the basis upon which the people agree to be ruled and the govt agree to act within strictly defined rules limiting their power to do as they wish.
• Within these rules provision is made to protect the civil liberties of the people and to set out the procedure by which the Constitution can be altered.

What is the difference between a codified and uncodified constitution?
• Codified – written in a single document, also entrenched and superior as forms of law e.g. US Constitution
• Uncodified – can be written but not in one single document. The UK Constitution has various sources from which it has developed.

What are the arguments given suggesting there is not a UK Constitution?
• It is uncodified – not organised into any single codex or document, but is scattered in many different sources and some parts are unwritten. Therefore, how can it be followed as a superior power?
• Constitutional statutes do not have more authority than other statutes.
• Constitutional laws cannot be entrenched due to parliamentary sovereignty, e.g. 1994 Criminal Justice Act overturned the Constitutional “right to silence.”

What are the arguments given suggesting there is a UK Constitution?
• There is a general sense of a constitution.
• Tradition is a very powerful influence within the UK. Govts are reluctant to infringe independence of the Judiciary, freedom of expression, primacy of the Cabinet etc.
• The public act as guardians of constitutional principles by voting out govts that have offended against these principles.
• There are accepted forms of constitutional rules.

What are the sources of the UK Constitution?
• Statutes or Acts of Parlt.
• Common Law/Judge made Law
• Prerogative powers e.g. National Security
• Unwritten Conventions e.g. Govt resigns if loses vote of no confidence
• Works of Authority e.g. Dicey’s “An introduction to the study of law of the Constitution”, Bagehot, Erskine May’s “Parliamentary Practice”
• European Law incl. treaties e.g. Maastricht Treaty

What is the weakness of the UK Constitution?
• Statute is supreme over other constitutional authorities.
• Therefore, an Act of Parliament can change/abolish any point of Common Law, RPP etc
• Statute is controlled by Parlt and Parlt is controlled by governing party.

What are the features of the UK Constitution?
• Unitary – Sovereignty in one place.
• Parliamentary system – supreme legislative.
• Rule of law – guiding principle that underlies UK Constitution limits govt.
• Limited sovereignty – limited by EU membership.
• Constitutional monarchy.
• Flexible – b/c unentrenched.
• Little separation of powers – no one person should be a member of more than one branch of govt (Montesquieu’s ideas)

What are the arguments in favour of a codified Constitution?
• To limit executive power which controls Parlt through elected Commons majority. The aim would be to disperse power more widely.
• Need for less centralised control from Westminster and greater powers for local govt.
• Define and limit prerogative powers and put them under control of parlt not govt.
• Individual rights not protected enough by HRA.

What are the arguments against a codified constitution?
• Would harm the efficiency of govt – present system allows to pass laws and deal with urgent matters quickly.
• Would prevent flexibility which currently allows govt to adapt to change. e.g. in USA presidential attempts to quickly adapt to crises have been rejected by Supreme Court using the Constitution.
• Would end Parliamentary Sovereignty and therefore undermine many of the institutions that the govt is based, destroying traditions which uphold the British political system.

Reply 2

Ayumi

11

i have a folder of notes for that.
if you want it, pm.

Reply 3

Dark and Lovely

OP

15

can anyone decipher this for me, it's from a sheet we were given

A written constitution is unnecessary as the current system is flexible and has a number of checks and balances built into it. The s.o.p means that the executive doesn't always win the day?

What the heck is s.o.p?!!

Reply 4

Ayumi

11

s.o.p?

erm...
it could be:
scrutiny, opposition, ___

*shrug*

Reply 5

Dark and Lovely

OP

15

could be scrutiny of parliament?

Reply 6

guccilittlepiggy

14

ComebackQueen

can anyone decipher this for me, it's from a sheet we were given

A written constitution is unnecessary as the current system is flexible and has a number of checks and balances built into it. The s.o.p means that the executive doesn't always win the day?

What the heck is s.o.p?!!

it means seperation of powers and the above statemnt isnt true. advantages include flexibility, ability to quickly respond eg after dunblane banning guns (whereas the us constitution pevented the banning of guns even after colunbine), abiltity to evolve over time to meet the changing needs of society eg womens right to vote. BUT we do not have a clear cut seperation of powers, the executive (blair& cabinet) sit in the legislature and exerts influence over it. judges in the legislature (in the lords) and therefore we do not have a seperation of powers, they are there but blurred. they can SOMETIMES prevent the executive from getting its own way( see the judges and recent terrorist legislation, blairs bills defeated etc) but this is rare and overall the checks and balances are not sufficient to ensure complete independence between the sops. also see the royal perogative. hope that makes sense??

Reply 7

Lottie

9

S.O.P. - sovereignty of Parliament?

According to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament is the only body that can make law for the UK. No authority can overrule or change the laws which Parliament has made. This principle, therefore, gives statute law (Acts of Parliament) precedence over the other sources of the constitution.

Reply 8

guccilittlepiggy

14

no its seperation of powers lol

Reply 9

Lottie

9

Below are some comments about whether or not we should have a codified constitution that touch upon the strengths of our current unwritten/7uncodified one.

Should the UK have a written constitution?
Supporters of the UK constitution in its current form argue that its great strength is its capacity for evolution. The constitution should not be written down in a single document, they argue, because it is constantly changing. Written, codified constitutions lack flexibility.

Against this, a growing number of people argue for constitutional reform. They claim that the constitution of the UK is out-of-date and undemocratic. These drawbacks could be remedied by producing a new written constitution.

A written constitution - arguments against
When people talk of a 'written constitution' what they mean more precisely is a constitution that has been codified (drawn up in a single document). Although part of the UK constitution is written (statute law, for example), part is not. Supporters of the current sstem argue that this is its strength. Sicne the constitution is not cast in stone, it is able to evolve and develop according to circumstances. It has a flexibility which codified constitutions do not have.

Norton (1988) points to three main arguments that are used against the introduction of a written constitution.

1. A written constitution is unnecessary
Not only is the current system flexible, it has a number of checks and balances built into it. For example, there is a balance between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. The executive does not always manage to get its own way. Opposition from within Parliament or from outside sometimes force the government's hand (as, for example, over the poll tax). Also, judgements in the courts may curb government excesses.

2. A written constitution is undesirable
A written constitution would mean that any dispute over the powers of government, the relationship between parts of the government and the relationship between government and the citizen would be settled by a court. Power would, therefore, be transferred from the executive (which is an elected body) to the judiciary (which is not). In addition, the judiciary would have the power to declare laws and actions unconstitutional. In other words, judges would have to make political decisions. Political decisions, supporters of this view argue, should be left to politicians.

3. A written constitution is unachievable
There are two main reasons why a written constitution is unachievable. First, it would be difficult to gain a consensus about what exactly should be written down in the constitution. And second, under the existing constitution, there is no body that can authorise or legitimise a new constitution. The one thing that Parliament cannot do is use its power under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty to destroy that doctrine, because its legitimacy to do so derives from the very power which it seeks to destroy. To create a new, written constitution, it would be necessary to start from scratch - which would cause constitutional and political turmoil that would not be worth enduring.

British Politics In Focus, Lancaster & Roberts (editors)

Reply 10

thebadeconomist06

Could any one help me with a question B (15 marks). Distinguish between a unitary and a federal constitution. What would i write about here? I was thinking contrasting the US and UK system but im a bit vague on the federal system

Reply 11

liamb

9

thebadeconomist06

Could any one help me with a question B (15 marks). Distinguish between a unitary and a federal constitution. What would i write about here? I was thinking contrasting the US and UK system but im a bit vague on the federal system

try this (including the mark scheme)
Distinguish between a unitary constitution and a federal constitution.

A unitary constitution is where power and sovereignty reside in a central authority. Power may be handed down to devolved or local authorities, this does not involve any pooling of sovereignty and these powers can be revoked. This is the case in the UK where devolved and local authorities have effectively been loaned their powers. In a federal constitution, there is an implication that sovereignty is shared between the federal and the state authorities. In the USA, states have their own legislatures and the federal constitution guarantees their rights. Only a challenge by the federal Supreme Court or a change to the federal constitution may alter the relationship.

(11-15) will distinguish both concepts with clear examples.
(6-10) may explain a partial response with examples.
(0-5) may have a limited understanding of the constitutions.

Reply 12

Sunny113

Btw if you want any help or any more notes just let me know, cos I know how much there is to revise for Politics.

Hi, im new to this but i happend to notice your message. Well, im really stuck on Unit 3 Politics and i was just wondering if you could send me some of your notes. My email add is [email protected].
Thanks.

Reply 13

liamb

9

Sunny113

Btw if you want any help or any more notes just let me know, cos I know how much there is to revise for Politics.

Hi, im new to this but i happend to notice your message. Well, im really stuck on Unit 3 Politics and i was just wondering if you could send me some of your notes. My email add is [email protected].
Thanks.

I'm on it! Watch your 'Inbox'!

Reply 14

shan4u_withlove

Hey... can u all help me... i gt question on wat r the disadvantages of unwritten law in UK..... hope u will list it down and explain it as well... plz pm me and I can tell you my email address.

politics question on the british constitution

Related discussions

Articles for you