People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not firmly true. It may not be present in a sole copy, like in the USA or Germany, but most of it are written down, ample of it in the laws passed in Parliament, that is as statute law. Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution. )1 The British Constitution is based on principles found in statutes, customs, precedents, judicial decisions, historical documents, conventions and practices.
Interactions amid the provinces and the federal government, from constitutional issues to the most irresistible topics bang up-to-date in the country, are indemnified beneath the umbrella of “Federalism”. Authorities are shared so that on some matters, the state governments are decision-holders, whereas on the other matters, national government grasps the autonomy. In last twenty-five years, the upsurge of federal fiats on both governments, local and state, has shifted the power amongst state and national governments. Now, the national government is beginning to have more governance over the state’s engagements. Under the British unitary system, U.S was a string of colonies.
Therefore constitutional conventions flow from a variety of documents or common practice. If single party governments have been in power for so long, how will the constitutional norms apply to a different kind of government? This essay seeks to explore some the implications of a coalition government and how it differs from single party governments. As
The Federation Council takes care of federal subjects as well as taking care of the political divisions of the country, they also pass legislation that has been approved (What Type of Government). The State Duma has the power to override veto made by the Federation Council as well as put up new law proposals (What Type of Government). The Judicial branch makes sure that the laws of the country are somewhat constitutional (What Type of Government). There is not just one form of the Judicial branch, there are three. General jurisdiction are the lower, middle and supreme courts.
This article would talk more about unwritten constitution and discuss about whether it can be still open and fair or not. Definition of Unwritten Constitution Unwritten constitution is a behavioral rule which is nationally accredited and given legal force by the state. The word unwritten refers to without the legislative process (or procedure) rather than no written record (Weyrauch, 1999). That is, unwritten constitution has normative, either. Characteristics Unwritten constitution refers to that both constitutional system and the protection of citizen’s rights are not explicitly stipulated in a unified code of written law but scattered among different sources of law, including constitutional law, written law, government documents, constitutional convention, understandings, habits and practices, etc (Qiang, 2009; Palmer, 2006).
After the Articles of Confederation, which did not hold up the United States, the Constitution was born. The Constitution introduced federalism as a way to divide the powers between the national and state governments. It has issued the balance that the United States has needed since 1787. Without federalism, all branches of government would abuse their power over many political decisions. The path of federalism was supported by eighty-five essays and articles written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton.
Although the Magna Carta does not hold any legal stand now, this crucial document is an important part of British history. It has a symbolic value on the guarantee of the citizen’s right and the concept that there should be limited legislation. Following the Glorious Revolution the bill of right 1689, which is a major significance in modern day democracy , was enacted by the parliament. It became a source of inspiration for the United States first ten Amendments, added to their Constitution in 1791. It is a landmark for the protection of the rights of individuals and the limitation of the parliament’s authority on judicial decision.
Afghanistan is a developing country which needs more years to develop its formal legal system all over the country. Before having our first constitution the current situation of Afghanistan is quite similar with what France was facing before the revolution. During the revolution time the whole legal system was corrupt, the judges and other officials were misusing their powers, most of the powers were with the king, and the king was accountable to no one. During that time majority of people suffered from the existing atmosphere, but after the codification of laws the government to take its first step to limit the power of high ranking officials, helped the people. Currently, the current civil law system suits the best for Afghanistan, since we suffer from lack of a good database for recording the data; but at the same time the chances of corruption and arbitrariness are high.
the degree of national unity, the level of political institutionalization, economic development, and political culture) and sometimes the more intimately political factors (e.g. the nature of civil-military relations, the cracks within the ruling blocs, and the relative weights of the costs of suppression and toleration)". Thailand's politics has suffered from structural problems so political reform was necessary to establish because the politics cannot be improved by changing the regime only. Thailand's democratization process has been generally analyzed by these factors while Thai politics could be viewed as bureaucratic politics up to the 1980s because of the military appointed member in parliament, representatives of military and civil bureaucrats in the cabinet. Tamada Yoshifumi argues the bureaucratic politics theory based on three principle
Procedural fairness is the ability to review or question policies, regulations or law that is considered to be wrongly formulated or unfair, which then refers to the judicial review. The way that is set up in the UK is relatively broad and might be perceived as confusing at points. Firstly, unlike many other states the UK does not have a written constitution as such but rather refers to existing statutes and precedents as such, according to which the ultimate source of law is the Parliament, which means that in the course of a term many statutes and precedents can be amended or eliminated with or without replacing them. Secondly, the constitution establishes the powers of the state, according to which all issues regarding the law shall be addressed to the courts of the UK, which essentially boils down to the fact that administrative cases are heard by the same courts . Whether or not a highly centralized court system is a benefit will be discussed further below.