This is the second part of a three-part series on the codification of the United Kingdom By Isabella Reynoso A constitution is essential for the organization of a state as it contains the fundamental principles and rules upon which a state exists Beatson, As suggested by Blick this is due to the absence of a critical moment in history, such as a revolution or an independence that has made Britain reform the constitution to the extent of codifying it. Moreover, two of the most important principles of the British constitution are that it is based on parliamentary supremacy and the separation of powers.
Book enthusiast and all-round man of culture. Occasional wannabe writer and dedicated reader of stuff Mar 24, Should the United Kingdom adopt a Written Constitution? This essay on UK constitutional law has been written in May Many things have happened in the meantime, giving birth to a plethora of constitutional issues: Even with these developments some of them so important as to change the relations of the UK with other countriesissues presented herein are still relevant.
However, this essay needs to be read keeping in mind the realities of up to mid Introduction What is a constitution? In short, it is a system of government that creates, regulates and guides the institutions of a state, regulates the relations between institutions, and also the relations between those institutions and citizens they govern .
To this extent, it may be said that the vast majority of states have a set of rules which allow them to function, and which are arguably acting as their constitution.
A constitution does not have to be democratic, in the current sense of the word: It can be argued Should britain have a codified constitution essay a constitution cannot be always held as a paragon or defender of democracy .
As documents regulating and conducting the affairs of state and guaranteeing the rights of the citizens, constitutions are generally quasi-immutable, entrenched documents. Modern constitutions tend to be written — or, rather, codified — documents.
The difference between a written and an unwritten constitution is, as observed by Tomkins and others, purely formal.
In these conditions, it can be said that the UK does possess a constitution, albeit not codified in a single document .
The reason for it is that in the United Kingdom, since the Civil War of midth Century, the Glorious Revolution, and the Act of Unionthere have been no other major social and political upheavals that asked for a clean slate. Nevertheless, voices on all sides of the political spectrum have started to call for a codified constitution, and it appears — as shown below — that one of the main reasons for an entrenched, supreme law of the land is the fear that a government or parliament, or the royal family might one day give in to dictatorial tendencies, and turn the country into an authoritarian, anti-democratic state.
To avoid misunderstandings, academics from Tomkins to Bogdanor and Vogenauer often clarify that the constitution it is written, but not codified; there is no single document called The Constitution of the United Kingdom.
Voices from both sides of the political spectrum have demanded a codified constitution, but their reasons can be conflicting. This particular term, elective dictatorship, was popularised in the s by Lord Hailsham as a warning to the dangers of what he perceived to be an excessively authoritarian Labour government .
In time, elements from the Left and the Right got to see in a codified constitution a guarantee of strong checks and balances against the Government, a means of reforming the British state and making it more accountable to its citizens, to the people.
But to achieve this, constitutional changes cannot be just a matter of form — from a constitution found in a multiplicity of documents to a single code — there must be changes of substance as well. Demands for change included, among others: Some of these desiderates have been accomplished, such as the introduction of the Human Rights Act and then of the House of Lords Act that removed the right to hereditary peerage, under Labour; the Fixed-term Parliaments Act came under the Coalition.
Some issues still need to be addressed, such as parliamentary control over prerogative powers. Linda Colley, writing in The Guardian, agreed: One of the arguments brought by those against a written constitution, is that it would be physically difficult to codify the existing set of rules, the vastness of the current system would pose a great problem to the new constitutional drafters, namely that of what to include and what to leave out .
Iain McLean argues that unelected houses, monarchs, and established churches  should be left out. Then, there is the issue of conventions, which might not be turned into constitutional articles, that is — court-enforced law .
If this will be the case, the year term for the delivery of a new constitution might turn to be too short. Three years later, John Baker, a commentator veering to the Right, also referred to the existence of too many pages of legislation .
An argument brought by the supporters of the unwritten constitution is that, in its current form, it is flexible  and it can be relatively easy to modify by the means of Parliament changing existing statutes or enacting new ones.Should the United Kingdom adopt a Written Constitution?
This essay on UK constitutional law has been written in May Many things have happened in the meantime, giving birth to a plethora of. Lara Harris Should Britain adopt a codified constitution?
Should the UK have a codified constitution? A constitution is a set of rules that establishes how political power should be distributed, the relationship between political institutions, the limits to government, the rights of citizens and how the constitution can be changed.
Should the UK adopt a codified constitution? Looking at both argument there are strong cases for both views on whether the UK should have a codified constitution or not.
This essay argues that the UK should not adopt a codified constitution. Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions.
Professor Robert Blackburn explains this system, including Magna Carta’s place within it, and asks whether the UK should now have a written. Below is an essay on "Should Britain Adopt a Codified Constitution" from Anti Essays, your source for research papers, essays, and term paper examples.
Should Britain adopt a codified constitution? Should the UK have a codified constitution? This essay will examine the argument for codification - the centralisation of the sources of constitutional law into a single written document – and the argument for conserving our “evolutionary non-codified” constitution.