Head of state:
The United Kingdom (UK) is a constitutional monarchy, the head of state is the hereditary monarch. The monarch is neutral within politics and the powers they have are non political, but formal and ceremonial. Having a democracy gives power to the people, they would vote who they want in power, giving the people sovereignty.
Pros of a codified constitution:
Arguably a codified constitution gives the people of the State one clear and accessible document, outlining the fundamental principles available to them within that State. Should the UK adopt a more codified constitution it would give sovereignty to the people. A codified constitution gives value to the principles that are contained within it. One case in which this is illustrated is the case of Cullen v Chief Constable of the RUC, in which the importance of the cementing the rights of individuals was paramount. This case further shows the risks carried by having an unwritten constitution, when there is continuous decrease in individual freedom as there are ever increasing restrictive legislation added continuously. A codified constitution would modernise the constitution within the UK as the current unwritten constitution has many past references which are outdated in the context of current times. Citizens rights would be protected as they would be entrenched within a codified constitution. …show more content…
It can be seen extremely difficult to amend a written constitution if necessary, therefore it is difficult for it to stay up to date as times move forward. The following The Enabling Act March 1933 shows how power can be abused when it is in the hands of the wrong political party, giving ultimate power to run the state whether for good or
The United Kingdom (UK) is a constitutional monarchy, the head of state is the hereditary monarch. The monarch is neutral within politics and the powers they have are non political, but formal and ceremonial. Having a democracy gives power to the people, they would vote who they want in power, giving the people sovereignty.
Pros of a codified constitution:
Arguably a codified constitution gives the people of the State one clear and accessible document, outlining the fundamental principles available to them within that State. Should the UK adopt a more codified constitution it would give sovereignty to the people. A codified constitution gives value to the principles that are contained within it. One case in which this is illustrated is the case of Cullen v Chief Constable of the RUC, in which the importance of the cementing the rights of individuals was paramount. This case further shows the risks carried by having an unwritten constitution, when there is continuous decrease in individual freedom as there are ever increasing restrictive legislation added continuously. A codified constitution would modernise the constitution within the UK as the current unwritten constitution has many past references which are outdated in the context of current times. Citizens rights would be protected as they would be entrenched within a codified constitution. …show more content…
It can be seen extremely difficult to amend a written constitution if necessary, therefore it is difficult for it to stay up to date as times move forward. The following The Enabling Act March 1933 shows how power can be abused when it is in the hands of the wrong political party, giving ultimate power to run the state whether for good or