Comparing the US and the UK Constitutions - Coursework Example

Comparing the US and the UK constitutions Introduction There are various types of constitutions that are in existence in the world today, for example, a constitution may be codified or uncodified. A codified constitution is different from the uncodified constitution as it refers to that type of constitution that is set down and written somewhere. Codified constitutions are always put in some legal authoritative document that clearly states the rights of the citizens and that of the government. The American constitution is one of the commonly known types of this constitution. The American constitution was drafted 200 years ago, it is written down on a piece of paper, it states the rights of the American citizens, and it clearly states the powers that the government has towards its citizens (Bellamy, 2010). An uncodified constitution simply refers to the type of a constitution in which there is no specific, formal documents clearly states the powers of the government and the limits to the powers given to the administration. The uncodified type of constitution is made up of a combination of a states laws that have been enacted over time, coupled with an emphasis on political precedent and the accompanied parliamentary procedures. The constitution provides the required framework with which a limited government operates within. The principles are always recognized by courts, the legislators and the executives as binding upon the government though it limits its powers. A good example of an uncodified constitution is that of the United Kingdom with its different sources ranging from conventions, prerogatives, common law and every famous previous work that was written by the constitutional professionals (Birkinshaw and Kombos, 2006). Comparison and contrast of the constitution of the United Kingdom and that of the United States of America will be handled in this paper. The core existing difference between the two types of constitutions is the variations in the flexibility that is found in them. The codified type of constitution is always rigid and very hard to change; the uncodified type of constitution is very flexible and tends to vary according to the circumstances and the emergencies that may arise in the countries where they exist (Bellamy, 2010). The constitutions always allow for quick changes that are always in line with the type of challenge that is being handled whereas, the codified form of the constitution takes quite a long time to amend. Again, the codified type of constitution always states the rights of the citizen but the clarity of the rights is not always well stated while on the other hand, the uncodified type of constitution tends to bring about confusions on the extent to which the rights of an individual extends (Fairclough, Lynch and Magee, 2013). Lastly, the codified types of constitution tries to keep a tighter rein on the responsibilities and the powers of the individuals who are in power while the unwritten type of constitution offers a great deal of power and freedom to the leaders of the countries where they have these types of constitutions (Forsyth, 2010). In an example and considering the case of the United Kingdom, the powers of the prime minister and that of the countrys cabinet are given great powers by the countrys constitution because they are both members of the executive and the legislature. In the case of the USA constitution, it gives a more clear separation of powers between the interested bodies and the president is only referred to as the executive and his or her powers are substantially limited (Birkinshaw and Kombos, 2006). The real fear with the United Kingdom’s constitution is that, it is very possible for extreme administrations to change the existing laws by means of force thereby paralyzing the whole of Englands political system. However, there are minimal chances for this to happen in reality. The same threat does exist in the US although their constitution is not in a position to evolve and at the same time, change easily when the circumstance demand it, unless a large number of the US citizens are in support of the change intended (Fairclough, Lynch and Magee, 2013). Changes in the US constitution over time In the late 16th century, only the whites could vote in America and there were no limitations to the period that the president was to serve as long as the people of the state elected him or her. There was a need therefore for changes in the constitution of America leading to some amendments being done to it by the people of the United States (Forsyth, 2010). The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States took place in 1870 and it gave freedom for all races in the US, black or white to take part in the countrys elections without any discrimination. The amendment made the blacks equal with the whites. What followed was the 19th amendment and it was ratified in the year 1920. The amendment allowed all the women in the US to vote after they were said to have the same intelligence of voting as that of men. The 22nd amendment followed and it limited the time that the presidents could stay to power into two terms each taking four years. The amendment was ratified in 1951. The last amendment was the 26th amendment; it passed in 1971 and it gave the citizens in the 18 to 20 years age bracket the right to vote (Fairclough, Lynch and Magee, 2013). Evolution of the British constitution The United Kingdom constitution has been evolving for a very long period. The revolution has been geared towards showing the relative stability of the government of British. The country has never seen an entirely recorded constitution although there has been some pressure from the liberal democrats draft a constitution and changes their system from uncodified to the codified system. Currently, what the UK gets is a collection of several statutes, judicial decisions, conventions and other treaties that are collectively termed as the British constitution (Forsyth, 2010). Why each state operates in the way that it does The two government systems work in different ways because the different constitutions that they use give different powers to the executive, the judiciary and the legislature making them act quite differently from one another (Frerichs, 2010). The executive Due to the difference in the constitutions used, the USA and the UK presidential systems always vary a great deal. The center of power in the US is always offered to the elected president of the state whereas in the U.K, the prime minister and the parliament are the most influential individuals of the executive. They maintain their powers as long as the acting prime minister is in a position to control the lots of votes in the Commons house. Thus, it is practically true that the president of the US is much more powerful that the prime minister of the United Kingdom. It is quite a contrast to note that, the British Prime Minister is in a position to pass any bill and legislation that he wishes to pass as he leads the administration with prime seats in the House of Commons (Frerichs, 2010). The transition period between when a president is elected by the people until when he or she settles in the office is usually two and half months in the US while the change in the United Kingdom concerning the change of the prime minister is almost done immediately. The government of the United States is greatly of partisan type with the president directly appointing the top executive officials who tend to be mostly from his winning party. In the UK, there exists equal partisan within the system with almost all the prime ministers coming from the leading governing party (Hassan, n.d.). The system in the US allows for the newly elected president and his or her close aides to make political appointments totaling to around 7,000, while in Britain, the prime minister is limited to appointing only a hundred members of the cabinet and each appoints a couple of unique and special advisers increasing the number of appointments to around 150. The Secretary of the State is seen to be the most powerful and senior most members of the appointed cabinet and he or she is always referred to as the foreign secretary in most of the countries. On the other hand, in Britain, the heads of each department in the government is given the title Secretary of Defense making every member of the cabinet to be a secretary of state (Hassan, n.d.). The newly elected president inauguration in the United States is usually seen as a prestigious and a highly celebrated affair. On the contrary, the prime minister in the UK simply sets out his or her vision and responsibilities to the government through a simple speech that is given in the House of Commons on the theme of the speech from the Queen that always opens the new session of parliament (Frerichs, 2010). As a result of separation of powers made by the US constitution, the U.S head of state is not given the opportunity to attend or even address the Congress except when the time president allows the addressing of state of the Union. Due to the existence of no power separation in the United Kingdom, the prime minister is always a member of one of the parliament houses and most the House of Commons (Watts, 2003). The prime minister is always expected to attend the sittings of the house at least once a week for a question session from the house members. The difference is always evident when the president of the US addresses the Congress as he earns respect and is not always interrupted during his or her speech while the UK prime minister is interrupted severally when addressing the Parliament (Joyce, 2015). The legislature For one to be a member of the United States houses of the legislature, Senate and that of representatives, he or she has to be elected by the population through public voting after a period. Consequently, the House of Lords is largely appointed. The rules in the Senate gives chance to the filibuster when a senator can bring forth discussions as long as they wish to do so and of any topic that they choose whereas, there is nothing like filibustering provisions in any of the houses in the United Kingdom (Joyce, 2015). The majority party members in the Americas house of representative and the Senate always chair all the committees that are considered powerful. On the other hand, in the two sections of the British Legislature, the chairpersons of the committees are always allocated between the various parties, it is always done in proportion to the number and size of the party in the house, and the British committees are always much less powerful compared to the US Congress (Hassan, n.d.). The Judiciary In the United States of America, the Supreme Court is seen as an intensely political institution as the United States of America president on a partisan basis directly appoints its members. The decisions that are made in these houses are based on politics and they a highly controversial. Contrary to what happens in the USA, members of the Supreme Court in Britain are not based on political appointments. Due to these facts, the decisions that are made by the Supreme Court are not always politically determined (Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth, 2010). Comparing the US and the UK constitutions In comparison, the two constitutions of the America and the United Kingdom require consent in one form or another to be changed but there is a common feeling that the luxury associated with the evolution of the constitutions overweighs the minimum risk of abuse. Another difference is that, the rights of the people of the United Kingdom cannot be guaranteed by their constitution compared to that of the United States of America that gives individual human rights (Joyce, 2015). At the same time, the constitution of the US is not in a position of improving the existing rights but that of the United Kingdom can improve the rights anytime the authorities feels like changing it. Again, the American people made it very clear that their decisions were not to have an evolved Constitution that was put together by the statute law and the countries traditions like it had been witnessed in England. The US government and other law professional went ahead and sought for something that was better thereby coming up with the codified type of a constitution (Moran, 2011). One of the key differences in the two constitutions is the fact that one is codified and the other is uncodified. The constitution of the UK is seen to be more flexible in the sense that there are no unique majorities required changing the clauses of the constitution and it could be done through the ordinary legislative means (Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth, 2010). The direct contrast of this system is represented by the American constitution because it is very rigid and it is fixed based on previous administrations that may have had the need of changing it. The constitution requires a substantial number of Americans in order to make any amendments (Watts, 2003). The variations in the rate of flexibility of these two constitutions have brought forth both their strengths and their weaknesses. The power of the American constitution is ingrained in the fact that it is recorded and the individuals who are in power cannot abuse it for the selfish desires. The power of the British constitution lies solely in its flexibility because it has been evolving through time and it is in a position of changing to suit any circumstances as it happened recently in the cases of devolution in the districts of Wales and Scotland (Moran, 2011). The written constitution existence in the United States of America has resulted in three fundamental impacts on the nature of the countrys administration. The first effect is that of the constitution limiting the flexibility in the way in which the government operates (Watts, 2003). The second way in which a codified constitution has influenced the government of the USA is that it secures the rights from any source of interference, which is not always the case with the constitution of the UK that is not always written down. The written constitution of the United States gives the US Supreme Court many powers to exercise over the other form of the government (Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth, 2010). Another difference that exists between the US and the UK constitution is shown by the fact that, there is the separation of powers that the constitution gives and no particular member of the cabinet is allowed to be a member of the Congress. In the British constitution, each administrative minister must be a member of one or more houses of parliament and they are not already in the countrys parliament house and they are always made to be peers (Moran, 2011). Conclusion From the use of these different constitutions, there is an evident difference in the way that the success of the application of the constitutions applies to the ordinary business of the two countries. Theoretically, in the field of international relations, there exists an unseen fight for supremacy between the USA and the United Kingdom. Historically, the transition of power that has been made by the constitutions of the United Kingdom and that of the United States is a clear evidence of the supremacy battle between the two states. Towards the 19th century end and the 20th-century beginning, U.S has been seen going up the radar and replacing the Great Britain as the worlds most powerful and largest economy. The rise and the emergence of America brought about a significant threat to the interests of the British government in the lands of the United States and stressed the dominance of the British Royal Navy position in the Atlantic waters. The battle for supremacy that existed between the US and the Britain with no doubt was leading to a potential conflict erupting between these two major world superpowers. The possibility of there being a conflict did not mean that one would happen and there is no point in history where we have seen the two countries being involved in a conflict. By applying their constitutions, the two states were in a position to finish a largely peaceful transition of power. The sides were successful in settling the disputes that existed between them and came up with a strategy that has kept them at peace up to date. The success that is enjoyed by these countries is attributed to the types of constitutions that they use. The application of a codified type of constitution by the United States of America has resulted in an equal distribution of resources and the economy of the country has been increasing over time making the country to be more powerful and successful that Britain. The type of constitution that guides the United Kingdom and which is usually flexible makes it hard for the country to come up with concrete decisions that will affect the state. The reason for this is because the constitution is always adjustable and the prime minister can change it any time that he or she wishes to. Personal decisions may lead to a decline in the rate at which the economy grows and this is what has made the US more successful than the UK. References Bellamy, R. (2010). Political constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Birkinshaw, P. and Kombos, C. (2006). The UK Approach to the Emergence of European Constitutionalism. Fairclough, P., Lynch, P. and Magee, E. (2013). AS UK Government and Politics. London: Hodder Education. Forsyth, C. (2010). Effective judicial review. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frerichs, S. (2010). Constitutional Ideal Types in the Global Age. Farnham [etc.]: Ashgate. Hassan, R. (n.d.). The Origin and Concept of Fundamental Rights in the Constitutions of US, UK and India: A Comparative Analysis. SSRN Journal. Joyce, P. (2015). Politics. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Moran, M. (2011). Politics and governance in the UK. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rose-Ackerman, S. and Lindseth, P. (2010). Comparative administrative law. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. Watts, D. (2003). Understanding US/UK government and politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Read More