F. F. Ridley argues that Britain does not have a true constitution as it does not meet the four essential characteristics of (i) ‘it establishes, or constitutes, the system of government and thus it is not part of it’; (ii) ‘it involves an authority outside and above the order it establishes’; (iii) ‘it is a form of law superior to other laws’ and (iv) ‘it is entrenched’. In contrast, the Select Committee on the Constitution argue that ‘the British Constitution, contrary to popular description, is not ‘unwritten’ – a good part of it is written – but it is uncodified’. The conflicting arguments of constitutional writers about whether the British constitution can even be labelled a constitution is reflective of how laypeople regard it. The common man is unlikely to know or understand the elements of the British constitution due to its uncodified nature, whereas in the United States of America the constitutional rights are a commonly known fact and people often refer to their amendment rights, largely due to the clear format demonstrating the fundamental laws and rights. As we withdraw from the European Union and large amounts of legislation is being repealed, replaced or introduced, knowing and understanding the key fundamental rules of Britain is crucial for its citizens and codification would solve
There are four main elements that explained postmodernism’s quasi-phenomenology of the state. First one is a genealogical analysis of the modern state’s ‘origins’ in violence. Modern political thought has attempted to transcend illegitimate forms of rule where power is unconstrained, unchecked, arbitrary and violent, by founding legitimate, democratic forms of government where authority is subject to law. The second one is an account of boundary inscription. To inquire into the state’s constitution, as postmodernism does, is partly to inquire into the ways in which global political space is partitioned.
It can be seen that each branch has different role , thereby, it means that if legislative authority has responsibility to enact the law, it does not have a duty for judicial decision or execution. This also apply to executive authority where it shall not be charged to enact the law and judges the dispute and also apply to judicial authority where it is not supposed to enact or administer the law. In my opinion, “power arrest power” means that only power which can be a tool to balance another power. In other words, it allow one branch to limit another as in Hannah’s work said that “Power can be stopped and still kept intact only by power”. For example(case of legislature and judiciary) is that judges in UK cannot stand
The governing document during this time, the Articles of Confederation, had multiple weaknesses including that there was no tax authority, no chief executive, and no judicial system. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 ultimately allowed for a functional, united governing system. The Federalists argument was more valid than the Anti-Federalist 's argument because they argued for an adequate government to preserve the union, a strong and energetic government, political prosperity, and the protection of life and liberty. In order to understand why the Federalist 's argument is stronger, we must examine the Anti-Federalist 's perspective. An Anti-Federalist is someone who opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution.
Donner. According to the professor of the Netherlands, the object of inquiry constitutional law is "the breakthrough with the state law" (de doordringing van de staat met het recht). That is, the state as an organization (power / position / folk) intruded by a variety of law. In the study of Constitutional Law was actually there is also a special branch of science that did a comparison study between the various constitutions, namely the Constitutional Law or Science Comparative Comparative Constitutional Law. Interest comparative method was essentially twofold: To compare two or more constitutions of various countries in order to find the basic principles of constitutional law; To compare a constitution that can be studied with another constitution or constitutions of other countries in order to understand more deeply the constitution were examined.
The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution.
Differences between Parliamentary sovereignty and Constitutional supremacy The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament is often presented as a unique legal arrangement without parallels in comparative constitutional law. By giving unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament, it appears to rule out any comparison between the Westminster Parliament and the United States Congress or the Malaysian Constitution, whose powers are carefully limited by their respective constitutions. Parliamentary sovereignty is thus seen as a unique feature and a result of the unwritten constitution. If parliamentary sovereignty is to be a legal doctrine, it must rely on a list of powers that belong to parliament as an institution.
The United Kingdom is well recognized to have an unwritten constitution, even though, they do not exist in a single text, like other countries such as USA and Malaysia, the huge parts of the so called United Kingdom constitution is actually written down and most of it being statutes. Thus, the UK constitution is often defined as ‘partly written and wholly unmodified.’ This doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty states about the correlation between the Parliament and the courts and which one is the supreme. It has been stated above that the UK is recognized to have parliament supremacy, but to what extent the supremacy is. Dicey said that the parliament is supreme, which it gives a meaning that under the English constitution, there is no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to overrule or set aside the legislation of Parliament as the parliament has the right to make or unmake any law
Each question has a different answer from both perspectives of law (Natural law and Legal Positivism) that will be discussed throughout this essay. Before we can understand the judges? roles with regard to Positivistic and Naturalistic views, we have to understand their ideas of law itself. In broad terms, Natural Law theory states that laws are discovered by moral reasoning and rationale. On the other hand Legal Positivism theory states that law is made by humans and has nothing to do with morality or justice.
The United Kingdom is one of three states that are said to not have a codified constitution, with no single document defining the fundamental principles upon which the country operates. It is instead composed of Acts of Parliament that have been deemed ‘constitutional statutes’ , judgements of the court, various constitutional conventions that are largely political in nature, influential academic writings, particular international treaties (i.e the European Union) and royal prerogative. Anthony King summarily defines the relationship between a country’s constitution and the codified document often termed ‘The Constitution’. The full constitution of any country is rarely, if ever, defined in a single prevailing document (what King terms the