With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain how a codified constitution differs from an uncodified one. (10 marks)
A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government. A codified constitution is one which the major principles underpinning the political system are collected in a single authorative document. On the other hand uncodified constitution has no single source for these values rather, they are found in a number of places. The UK is an example of an uncodified constitution whereas the USA is a representation of codified. In this essay I will address how each form differs from the other.
In a codified constitution, the document itself is authorative in the sense that it establishes “higher law”. This type of constitution binds all political institutions, including those that make ordinary law. The provisions of the constitution are also known to be entrenched. This means that it is difficult to amend, make changes or abolish. Conversely, uncodified constitution is in no sense authoritive, its laws enjoy the same status as conventional laws. Unlike a codified constitution, it is not entrenched – this allows flexibility and means that the constitution can be changed through the normal process of enacting statute law.
As well as this, a codified constitution often states the rights of the country’s citizens so there is a degree of clarity and something in which the people can identify with. Whereas an uncodified constitution can lead to some confusion about how far an individual’s rights stretch. This led to the Enshrining of the US constitution in the hearts of the American people. Specifically the Bill of Rights, which, when compared with the UK is confused and the people have little knowledge of their privileges.
With an uncodified constitution, there is no