...The folks who wrote the United States Constitution were some of the most capable people around to craft such a document. However, to make this document perfect would have been an impossible task. Some major changes would occur in the US and in the world, which no one could have expected. In the very beginning of the 1800s, there was a transfer of political power between the Federalists and Republicans, this was essentially a change in the principles of government, which the people wanted. Secondly, democracy around the world was revolutionized during the two centuries following the creation of our constitution. Lastly, many new constitutions were created including a new British constitution, which our constitution was heavily modeled after. Furthermore there were three major immovable limitations to what the constitution could be....
Words: 613 - Pages: 3
...A Living Constitution as defined by The University of Chicago is a constitution that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances. While many people disagree about whether the US constitution is living or not Harvard graduate and author, David Strauss, believes that the US Constitution is living. He also believes that having a living constitution that is able to change with the times is a good thing because as stated in his article “...an unchanging Constitution would fit our society very badly.” He is correct by saying this because not only would a constitution that is a bad fit create issues within our society, but also as technology continues to get better our lives change drastically. The US Constitution is a living document, which Strauss accurately believes has had a positive influence on our country by allowing it to adapt and change as we do. Strauss believes that we have a living constitution and that we...
Words: 714 - Pages: 3
...have a living Constitution and should we have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that changes with times; one that is continuously evolving and adapting to new ways of life and circumstances without being formally amended and changed. On one side of the argument, the answer to the question must be yes: a living Constitution seems like the only realistic option, as every generation faces different issues that must be politically dealt with in ways that are modern and efficient. Our Constitution, the document that was created around 230 years ago and currently resides under a glass bubble at the National Archives, can be amended and changed with the times, however, the amendment process is long, exhausting and most of the times unsuccessful....
Words: 1178 - Pages: 5
...elasticity, the United States Constitution has flourished and overcome various political and social challenges over the past two hundred years. Elasticity in this context renders a document changeable and adaptable. This inherent characteristic has allowed for a government that has survived for more than two centuries. The amendment process has allowed the Constitution to stay in place, as it is difficult to alter. Although the amendment process is strict in nature, it simultaneously ensures a flexible government whose interests reside in the bettering of the country, as it prevents any amendments that are not imperative to the well-being of the nation from being passed. The supreme Court’s ability to interpret the Constitution...
Words: 894 - Pages: 4
...Should the British constitution remain an uncodified constitution? The definition of a constitution is the set of rules that outline the fundamental principles, laws or policies, in a country according to the government. There are various features that create a constitution for example, they can be seen as rigid or flexible. Flexible meaning that laws can be easily changed, whereas rigid they have to go through a lengthy process involving some form of referendum. However, the feature I am analysing is whether the British constitution should be codified or uncodified. The UK is an example of an uncodified constitution. Uncodified means that, unlike other democratic constitutions, it has not been brought together into one single document. Should Britain codify their constitution similarly to almost every other constitution? A codified constitution means the constitution is all collected in one single document, it is commonly known as a written constitution. One hand there are arguments supporting the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution. If it were to be introduced there is an argument that it would make the rules clearer. If they are in a single document, there are more clearly understood and create less confusion as they aren’t spread across several different documents. Another argument for codified constitution is that it would undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The government could not interfere with the constitution if it was codified...
Words: 529 - Pages: 3
...Assess the strengths of the UK constitution [25 marks] A constitution is a set of principles, that may be uncodified (unwritten) or codified (written), that relates to how power is distributed within a political system, and establishes how a state is to be organised and governed. Constitutions seek to establish duties, powers and functions of various institutions of government and contribute to defining the relationship between the state and the individuals, for example, defining the extent of civil liberty. The UK constitution helps provide legitimacy to those, of which, are in power, but also limits government power. Although the UK constitution is uncodified, as a whole, parts of the constitution are codified, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights is a codified part of British Law, even though it was designed and created by the Council of Europe, in 1950. Firstly, the UK constitution, being uncodified, means that it is flexible and can be easily adapted to changing circumstances, which could include referendum use and the continuous changing role of the House of Lords. The UK constitution is often called 'organic', which means that the constitution is rooted in society, and consequently means that when society and it's values change the UK constitution can adapt and change to society, without delay or hesitation. Furthermore, because the UK constitution is uncodified, it allows Parliament to pass Acts, without long delays and also allows new, uncodified...
Words: 738 - Pages: 3
...beyond recognition from the vision of the Founding Fathers.’ Discuss this view of the modern US constitution. In many ways, the US constitution has changed and shifted since its creation in 1787. It has changed, with power being put into the hands of bodies not specified in the constitution and certain constraints on power no longer existing. All in all, however, the constitution has maintained the very thing it was created for- to limit the power of the government and protect the people from tyranny of the executive. In this sense, the constitution is still very much embodying the vision of the founding fathers and is relatively unchanged given the lengthy period of time they have existed for. The powers of the president remain relatively unaltered and the intricate set of checks and balances established by the founding fathers remains pretty much the same. Several amendments to the constitution have happened more recently than the time of the Founding Fathers and these change the way in which the constitution can be seen as the same. During the presidency of Bill Clinton, there were 18 votes on proposed constitutional amendments, an unusually high number. All these votes occurred during the 6-year period when the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress. The power of the executive has changed greatly since the creation of the Constitution. The President has taken on some powers not given to him by the Founding Fathers, giving him...
Words: 977 - Pages: 4
...Consider the arguments for and against a written constitution for the United Kingdom. Before moving on with the main benefits and disadvantages of a written constitution, we firstly need to establish what a constitution is. A constitution sets down the general and fundamental principle on which powers of the state are to be exercised. So, in this sense, the constitutional law is often described as the fundamental law of the land, its main objective is to determine and allocate functions and powers among various organs of the government. The constitution also defines the relation between governing authorities and the common man. The UK has always run on the basis of an unwritten constitution, which basically means that all the rules and regulations governing the fundamental state as well as the basic rights of the people are not codified in one single document known as the ‘constitution’. Unlike many other super powers around the world, Britain has never had the need to consolidate the building blocks of its land due to its relatively stable political development over time. Apart from the documentation of parliamentary laws and to a certain extent, judicial decisions, the unwritten constitution is mainly derived from traditions, precedents, and customs. Moreover, the conventions responsible for these laws are governed by obligations and obedience. These traits only emerge over time and consequently exert great significance to common law, allowing judges to make constitutional...
Words: 908 - Pages: 4
...“Britain should adopt a codified constitution”, Discuss. (40 mark) Intro A constitution is a set of rules/principles, which aim to set the duties and powers of government. There are two different types of constitutions, codified (written) and uncodified (unwritten), which the UK is an example of an uncodified and the U.S.A a codified. Codified and Uncodified Constitutions An uncodified constitution is a constitution made from principles that are not formatted into one single document and unlike codified is not authoritative and also not entrenched. A codified constitution is where the principles or rules are collected within a single document. Codified constitutions have three key features, the first is that the document itself is authoritative in the sense it constitutes a ‘higher’ form of law. The other key feature is that It binds all political institutions. And the final key feature is that they are said to be entrenched which means they are difficult to abolish or amend. UK for a Codified Constitution Some people argue that if the UK adopted a codified constitution is a good thing. If it was to be adopted it would significantly change the UK because it would affect: the power of the government and people’s rights and freedom. One of the biggest arguments for adopting a codified constitution is the fact it would make all rules/principles a lot clearer as they would all be in 1 single document and more clearly written meaning it would create less confusion...
Words: 557 - Pages: 3
...On Hertzberg and the Revamp of the U.S. Constitution Since its inception, the United States Constitution has been subjected to series of amendments over different time periods. Robert A. Dahl, in his book entitled How Democratic Is the American Constitution (2001), goes beyond discussing the relatively common pattern of constitutional amendment by arguing that major changes may be necessary to rescue the Constitution from its long-standing defects. Reviewing Dahl’s work through the essay “Framed Up: What the Constitution Gets Wrong,” author Hendrik Hertzberg traces the undesirable historical and political implications of the structure and content of the Constitution. Affirming Dahl’s position, Hertzberg suggests that the U.S. Constitution is a historically imperfect document with certain loopholes in its language, provisions, and direction, which allow undemocratic structures/processes and inefficiencies in government. While Hertzberg’s direct arguments are generally persuasive, the implicit suggestions of his views regarding the flaws and less favourable implications of the U.S. Constitution provide stronger support for introducing major changes into this document. As suggested earlier, it not difficult to agree with Hertzberg’s assumptions that the U.S. Constitution needs to be overhauled. Hertzberg identifies a historical ground for justifying substantial changes to the Constitution: individual Amendments were inadequate in defining the tasks and limitations of the judiciary...
Words: 1622 - Pages: 7
...The UK needs a codified constitution: A constitution is a set of laws, rules and practices that authorize the state to govern, also specifying the powers of the governing institution and the formal relationships between them, civilian and the state. There are numerous types of constitution. Constitutions could be codified and uncodified, unitary (Centralized government makes legislation, and passes it down through local authorities) or federal (Power travels up through regional bodies to the centralized state.) The United Kingdom is unique in other words there are just 4 nations around the globe that have a written constitution and the UK is one of them. The others being Israel, Canada and New Zealand. On the other hand the USA is an example of a codified constitution. A codified constitution is a constitution in which key written documents are gathered inside a single document, it is generally known as a written constitution. Additionally they are entrenched, enjoying the protection of higher court. Moreover in a codified constitution laws can only be amended by special provisions. Therefore making it rigid, in other words it is extremely difficult to pass laws in a codified constitution. Alongside this, an uncodifed constitution relies on various sources meaning it is not written down in a single document, this is in contrast to a codified constitution where all the laws are to be found in one single document. In addition an uncodified constitution is not entrenched and...
Words: 968 - Pages: 4
...The term constitution has been defined by many scholars, one such scholar defines a constitution as,” a document having a special legal sanctity which sets out the framework and principal functions of the organs of government with the state, and declares the principals by which those organs must operate” . The idea of a constitution is not a new one but is as old as the concept of government. One cannot speak of the government without directly linking it to the constitution which it is founded on. A constitution as noted from the above definition describes what constitutes a government which is the different organs, regulates the actions of the organs of government and restricts the actions of that government based on what is regarded as constitutional acts of that government as provided for in the constitution. A constitution of any state plays an important role in the governing of that state; constitutions worldwide have mostly emerged as a result of the need to start a new chapter in the way that states are governed. This is mostly evident in countries that were once colonised and those that went through revolutions. For those colonised, after attaining independence many adopted constitutions from their colonial masters. Although many of the colonised states of Africa had inherited constitutions from there colonial masters. These constitutions did not stand the taste of time as they were bequeathed on them and was not a true reflection of how the general citizenry of the...
Words: 14344 - Pages: 58
...In What Ways Is the US Constitution a Living Document? In 225 years, the United States’ Constitution has only been formally amended 27 times. However, the Supreme Court is constantly make informal amendments to the Constitution. The Supreme Court hears only 100-150 of the thousands of cases they are requested to review each year ("About the Supreme Court"). Although an informal amendment doesn’t change the wording of the actual Constitution, it can make a huge impact on how America views a law or action as constitutional or unconstitutional. These informal amendments have allowed the Constitution to remain the supreme law of the land for over two centuries. Through considerable research, one can prove the Constitution is a living...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...In the United Kingdom, we have a constitution that is uncodified and therefore not entrenched within our politics. Essentially, this makes it far easier to amend than a codified one and thus some groups have begun calling for such a constitution to be introduced. These groups cite the constitution in the USA, which forms the foundation of all political decisions; if a proposed law is found to go against the constitution, it is rejected. Supporters of a codified constitution for the UK say that this will give citizens inalienable rights which cannot easily be manipulated or even overturned by the government. A constitution is based around a general consensus of what people should be able to do or not do. Constitutional agreement forms the foundations of the concept of a rule of law. In the USA, their written constitution means that the relationship between citizens and the law is clearly defined. If a constitutional law is violated, there can be no debate over it. This means that the law has more authority in the land. However, in the UK, there is not one legal standard of our constitution and thus whether or not it was violated can be questioned. This can potentially lead to a moving of the goalposts – if the constitution is not entrenched, it is easy to change. Therefore it is impossible to hold everyone to the same standard even though the rule of law states that everyone is bound by it, because the government can essentially do what it likes in terms of manipulating or...
Words: 1775 - Pages: 8
...against the adoption of codified constitution for the UK A constitution is a system of rules which describes the structure and powers of the government, the relationship between different parts of government and the relationship between government and citizens. The UK has a un-codified constitution which means it is not written out in one single document. Unlike codified constitutions which are, such as the US constitution. There are many arguments against the idea of a codified constitution. One argument is that codified constitutions are considered inflexible, because higher law is more difficult to change than statute law. It’s easier to introduce an act of parliament than to amend a constitution. The UKs constitution is flexible as it is not entrenched. This is good because the constitution stays relevant and up to date. For codified constitutions it is difficult to change and adapt so this is a downside. A second argument against agreeing to a codified constitution is that parliamentary sovereignty would be effectively ended. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can make unmake or amend any law it wishes. With a codified constitution parliament would not be able to make, unmake or amend any law it wishes due to the existence of the constitution. This is because a codified constitution would act as higher law. Another point is that a new codified constitution in the UK is unnecessary. Codified constitutions may also not be the most effective...
Words: 297 - Pages: 2
