This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Disadvantages of uncodified constitution

???

I have a few, including not entrenched, easily manipulated, too flexible, power unspecific, pre-democratic elements survive etc.

My essay isn't long enough and it doesn't have enough points :unsure:

Any ideas?

Thanks :wink:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

NicLeys

What is the full title of the essay?

Reply 2

Vesta

NicLeys

What is the full title of the essay?

C) What are the Disadvantages of an Uncodified Constitution?

Reply 3

NicLeys

Lol. Sorry! I didn't think it would be that straightforward!

Where have you looked so far? Sources etc?

Loughlin on The Idea of Public Law is very good, but a difficult read.
Bradley&Ewing as a standard text is useful also.

As for my thoughts, the HR/civil liberties side of the argument is most interesting i.e. no standard text regulating actions of government, perhaps no 'absolute' rights - derogation from HRA and so on.

Oh, and http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/david_pannick/article2856673.ece

Reply 4

samba

You probably need more bulk as opposed to more arguments from the sounds of it. Argue both sides and come to a conclusion.

Reply 5

Vesta

Both sides? :unsure:

Argh. I was told I only need one side. Can anyone confirm both sides?

Reply 6

Sephirona

Cambodia?

Reply 7

samba

To properly argue 'real' disadvantages, you need to give the other side of any argument to validate that your disadvantages are indeed disadvantages.

eg. If a submarine comes up to radio depth to receive messages, the disadvantages are that it could be detected etc...but thats outweighed by the advantages.

Reply 8

liamb

No focus on the disadvantages. Your textbook should have a quick table or list to give you the main points. Your answer should be about 500 words long (that's 2 sides of A4 for my handwriting).

The point of setting Questions like this is twofold:

1. To stop people just learning a standard answer for AD/Dis of X. Now you have to learn standard answers for three points of view.

2. Unlike GCSE History, the examiners want to know if you can isolate and explain one half of the argument - irrespective of what you think. A good TV/Radio presenter has to do this all the time. (The Devil's Advocate etc.)

Reply 9

adelante

Agree with Liam on this. Answer the question asked. In this case it is an in depth answer on the "disadvantages of an uncodified constitution". You should be able to state each disadvantage in one sentence and then go on to explain in depth each disadvantage with many sentences. You need to show you understand why each point is a disadvantage.

For example:

An unacceptable amount of power could drift towards the executive or prime minister.

Liberals have argued that lack of clarity about the powers of the PM, executive, legislature and judiciary has led to power being concentrated in the PM and the executive. If powers of the institutions of government were clearly stated it would be far more difficult for power to shift from one place to another. Any shift of power would require a stated constitutional change. Without codification, power can shift over time towards the PM with the passing of one law then another.

Ad

Reply 10

cheryljc

If this is for AS (sounds like it is, I did AS last year...) then you do just need to give the one side.

Disadvantages I can remember off the top of my head:
1) No protection for civil rights and liberties
2) No clear outline of the relationship between the government and the governed
3) No outline or restriction of government power
4) No clear outline for the style of government e.g. whether the judiciary, executive and legislature should be seperate or not
5) It's easily changed

Hope that's helpful :smile:

Reply 11

The West Wing

The main reason is the lack of protection from over-encroachment on the liberties of the individual by the government. The fact that the Labour government have actively sought to reduce various inalienable rights of British citizens with no effective sovereign opposition is extremely scary. The necessity of a codified constitution will increase as the balance between freedom and security becomes increasingly obfuscated.

Reply 12

OnlyMe!

This question was in the exam in the summer, right?

I answered it...I only gave a one-sided answer, as I was told only to.

Now, people are saying otherwise.

Anyone like to clarify this?

It'd be much appreciated, considering I'm resitting this module in January. :p:

Reply 13

adelante

People are wrong. Look at the question and answer it. If it asks what are the disadvantages of something. Write about the disadvantages. If it asks about the advantages; then write about the advantages. Examiners are not trying to catch you out. Just answer the question.

Read Liamb's post above. He know's what he's on about as he teaches this stuff.

Ad

Reply 14

liamb

He also examines for one the boards too...

Reply 15

Adam83

The West Wing

The fact that the Labour government have actively sought to reduce various inalienable rights of British citizens with no effective sovereign opposition is extremely scary.

That would be a constitution promoted by these very same labour gov. and affiliates; charter88, the federal trust, etc.

whats more scary is they have been elected three times.

Reply 16

SayeedaHaq

A component of the UK constitution is that changes can lack legitimacy. What is an example of this that i can add to give evidence?

Thankyou : )

Reply 17

harryedgeworth

When mentioning about it's flexible nature, give an example like how the government was able to quickly retaliate to the tragic Dunblane Massacre of 1996 by imposing a ban on handguns