The Pros And Cons Of The British Constitution

1449 Words6 Pages
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. Additionally, the possibly existence of only a few other countries in the world that does not have a written, along with new change of constitution such as the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Constitutional Change Act of 2005 have rekindled the debate on whether or not the United Kingdom should write its constitution . This essay will start by introducing some of the proposal that have been shown and forwarded for a codified constitution. It will then argue that even though it is
Open Document