It has been argued that a constitution written in the eighteenth century does not work in the twenty first century. The US constitution is codified as it is written in one place and is the supreme law of the United States. Arguments that support the view that the constitution does not work in the 21st century include it giving too much power to the Supreme Court, some provisions being outdated and the amendment process being too difficult in modern context. The two contrasting views can be summed up in the following quotes. William Gladstone quipped that the constitution was “the most wonderful work ever struck off by the brain and purpose of man” while Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated “I would not look at the US constitution if I was drafting a constitution in the year 2012”.
One argument that supports the view that a constitution written in the eighteenth century does not work in the twenty first century is the US constitution handing too much power to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made several controversial and contentious decisions which arguably have weak constitutional foundation in cases such as Citizens United 2010 and Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Because there is no appeals process, these decisions cannot be challenged. There is an amendment process that could overturn these decisions but this is difficult to achieve in modern circumstances. The Supreme Court is an unelected body that is given too much power and can make decisions at the expense of elected representatives with mandates. This agrees that constitution written in the eighteenth century does not work in the twenty first century because it gives too much power to an unelected body. Because the UK has a uncodified constitution, this is not the case. The UK government can withdraw the Supreme Court’s powers by revoking the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
A further argument that supports the view