The Continental Congress had very minimal power under the Articles due to which it could neither establish a federal judicial nor deploy the army or the federal police for enforcing the laws. Since the Articles could not solve the rivalry among the thirteen states, the Constitution replaced it in the year 1787 as there was a necessity of establishing a strong and powerful national government. There are various notable similarities and differences between the Articles and the Constitution. While the
Instead of having a codified constitution in a single document United Kingdom choose to split it in several documents. FF Ridley has an opposite opinion and he support his position by saying that United Kingdom does not possess a written constitution because it fails to cope any of the four essential elements of a right
Further on the at the time of signing the testament there has to be a presence of two witnesses to ensure its validity as well as its non fraudulent status. The Wills Act, specifically s.1 and s.9 fails to comply with what a secret trust is in its essence. In its truest form it gives a suggestion that there is no possible way for a secret trust to exist in the face of the law given that it does not comply with the Wills
held that since the validation of the Prime Minister’s election was not applying any law, therefore it offended the Rule of Law . According to Mathew, J. Clause (4) of Article 329-A offended the Rule of Law which postulates the pervasiveness of the spirirt of law throughout the whole range of government in the sense of excluding arbitrary official action in any sphere . Referring to the same constitutional provision, Beg, J. observed that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to try a case on merits cannot be taken away without injury to the basic postulates of the Rule of Law and of Justice within a politically democratic constitutional structure. A study of keshavnand, Indira Gandhi, and other habeas corpus cases, “provides a distillation of judicial thought on the conception of the Rule of Law, which has evolved well over a quarter century.
It would stir up the conflicting emotions and prejudices about the future of the monarchy, the European Union, the House of Lords, the voting system and human rights. The adoption of a written constitution would politicise the judiciary, requiring the courts to form judgements on questions of a political nature that should be dealt with properly by politicians through the normal parliamentary
Constitution is necessary for the coordinating of a state as it involves the fundamental rules and regulations in which a state exists . However the Britain constitution involves a written foundation such as the statutes. It is one of the few that is not written down in a single document . As an idea by Blick, it is due to the absence of a serious moment in the history, such as a revolution or an independence that has made Britain transformed the constitution to the level codifying it. However, two of the most important regulations of the Britain constitution are known because it is much based on Parliamentary Supremacy (means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights) and the division of powers (meaning that Parliament, as opposed to a written constitution, it is the highest source of law in the United kingdom and that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary powers would be divided among themselves.
Political challenge – Replacing free movement with a work permit system will not automatically fix public concerns on migration. It involves discussions on various political issues like the policies involved in migration and the levels that should be allowed. This tends to take a long time and involves tedious controversies and varied points of
It was not perfect. Flaws in the weak central government, and weak state governments proved problem some. The inability to displace riots, collect taxes, and a functioning army, made effective governance nearly impossible. The Federalist and the Anti-federalist both supported arguments for their ideological differences. Mainly, differing on who would assume most of the power in the governing structure.
The UK is currently one of the few democracies in the world with an uncodified constitution and there has been debate on whether it should become codified. This essay argues that although having a codified constitution increases clarity for the population and limits government power, it is too rigid and unnecessary, and also contradicts the fundamental principles and values of the current constitution. One of the most important reasons for the codification of the constitution is clarity for the citizens of the UK. It is argued that the current uncodified constitution is far too complex and therefore, the public have little insight and awareness of how the state is government and how it operates. Being able to access the country’s fundamental principles in a single document would allow the population to understand their rights and individual liberties effortlessly without needing to dissect and scrutinize the wide range of sources that make up the uncodified constitution.
Thus, it seems pertinent to mention here the flexibility which they afford the British constitution; because, these rules of constitutional behavior; e.g. Doctrine of ministerial responsibility; remain unenforceable in the court of law, as a result, they can be ridden off as easily as they were adopted. These conventions, coupled with the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, allows parliament to, by a simple majority, bring about constitutional amendments, with ease. However, critics have been mindful of this constant transformation to the constitution, and W. Bagehot in his works famous said that “if you are always altering your house, it is a sign that either that you have a bad house, or that you have an excessively restless disposition – there is something wrong somewhere” . On the other hand, Vernon points out that, observers of the British constitution, discovered the key to the success of the British government, lies with its triumph in combining “freedom with stability” .