Codified vs uncodified

Cards (16)

  • Intro - Define?
    A constitution is a set of principles which may be written or unwritten that establishes the distribution of power between branches of gov't, the relationship between the governed and the government, the limits of govt, rights of the citizens and method of amending the constitution itself.
  • Introduction - Context?
    In the UK the constitution is uncodified and unentrenched, with this comes debate on how well the constitution establishes sovereignty and protection of rights.
  • Intro - Answer?

    This essay will argue that the UK constitution should not be codified and unentrenched by looking at civil liberties, relationship between the branches and changing social attitudes.
  • P1 weaker point?
    a codified constitution would represent a higher constiutional law, which would entrench the British people's civil liberties and so protect them from arbitrary government.
  • P1 weaker why?
    The Human Rights Act 1998 does not do this because it is an Act of Parliament, therefore, the gov't can suspend or repeal it.
  • P1 stronger point?
    However, the stronger argument would recognise the separation of powers means that civil liberties are adequately protected.
  • P1 stronger why?
    The judiciary use common law, the Human Rights Act and Equality Act to protect and develop human rights. They can also hold the government to ultra vires, such as Miller 1 and 2, demonstrating the limits of parliamentary sovereignty being used to avoid being held accountable.
  • P1 Evaluation?
    Whilst, having a codified constitution further protects civil liberties, the extent in which it would do so is limited because the judiciary use common law and ECHR to ensure Act's of parliament are compatible with them.
  • P2 weaker argument?
    The weaker argument woulf argue that the codified constitution would clarify the relationship between the various branches of govt, and establish more clearly where sovereignty lies. Especially, between the executive and legislative branches as their roles overlap. Also, giving more authority to the supreme court being able to quash laws that are unconstitutionall not just incompatible.
  • P2 stronger point?
    However, the stronger argument would recognise that the ambiguity in the British constitution is an advantage since it allowed for changing relations between England, Scotland, Wales and N.I, in reponse to the will of the public.
  • P2 stronger explanation?
    This would have been more difficult if the constitution was codified, however, because it isn't the govt could establish the Scottish Parliament, and Wales and N.I assemblies. Which was significant in establishing peace in N.I. through the Good Friday Agreement, ending the troubles.
  • P2 evaluation?
    Whilst, having a codified constitution may make roles and responsibilities of the executive, legislature and judiciary more clear, it would more significantly hinder the flexibility of the UK's quasi-unitary state. Further limited the UK's pluralist democracy as learnt in C1.
  • P3 weaker argument?
    The weaker argument would argue the rights of minorities could be further recognised in a codified constitution. This is especially important in a multi-cultural society, in which many alternative lifestyles exist. Further, encouraging more political engagement, since the public would know what their relationship with the government is.
  • P3 stronger point?
    However, the stronger argument recognises the government's role in changing according to social and political attitudes. Having a codified constitution reflects the social and political attitudes of the people who composed it. It, therefore, cannot keep pace with societal changes the same way an uncodified/entrenched constitution can.
  • P3 stronger evidence?
    Likely, making the house of lords reform more difficult to implement.
  • P3 evaluation?
    Whilst, having a codified constitution would more clearly outline the rights of minorities, it prevents the flexibility of the government, to include further precautions to prevent limits to their civil liberties .