Information on Constitutional Law - Essay Example

Running Head: Constitutional law Constitutional Law s Constitutional Law A constitution is a system of rules which describes the structure and powers of government, the relationship between different parts of the government and citizen. When talking about a constitutional government, we really mean whether or not the United Kingdom has a constitution. This is a discussion which has been argued over many years. The sources of the constitution are also important, statue law, common law, royal prerogative, conventions, works of authority, treaties and laws of the European Union all contribute greatly to the constitution, making it what it is. One of the most significant differences, that is evident from the evaluation of the constitutions of the United States and the United Kingdom, is that one is codified and the other is not. The US constitution has a physical existence whereby it is written down and is accessible to virtually anybody in the US to refer to. Contrary to this, the UK constitution is regarded as being uncodified as it has not been formally established in a "bill of rights" format. However, these judgements of the constitutions are only accurate to a certain extent. The origins of both constitutions explain why they are different in structure due to the organic development of the UK constitution, comprised of conventions, acts and authoritative works, and the establishment of the US constitution in 1789 following the "years of weakness and chaos resulting from the pre-existing Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union which loosely bound the colonies together since 1778". However, although the UK constitution is generally regarded as being unwritten, there is evidence to suggest that this is not entirely correct. For example, Walter Bagehot wrote a book entitled "The English Constitution", an authoritative work. However, the only problem with this was that the day after it was published an act was passed, immediately resulting in it being outdated. Similarly, any laws that are passed in Britain immediately become part of their constitution, which suggests that the UK constitution cannot be deemed as uncodified. We must first look at the fact the UK has parliamentary democracy, and has the monarchy as the head of state. When looking at the monarchy we must state that its powers are strictly limited by parliamentary sovereignty and by constitutional restraints, the monarchy has hardly any political role. The argument against this is there is hardly any restraint on the parliament itself, except before the time before an election, however the role of law states that all are equal under the law and the government must respect the laws when making decisions and taking action, this shows that there is a constitution, and the government recognises the fact that there are constitutional principles they must adhere too. However, parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament has ultimate political authority, it may not be overruled and can pass a law of any kind, yet it cannot pass laws that will require further parliaments to adhere too. However, there are arguments that under the British 'constitution' there is too much power within the hands of the central government, and especially the prime minister who can act under the royal prerogative, for example he can declare war without needing the parliament's approval. Also, the Collective Cabinet responsibility states that all ministers must not disagree with government policy in public; if they do they are likely to be dismissed or asked to resign. This proves that the government is too secretive and neglects to inform its citizens of many things, although the Freedom of Information act allows to citizens to see most information stored about them, it does not allow them to see everything. Although devolution has taken place in the sense of the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Act, power is still too centralised, for example in the military forces, and it seems that there is insufficient control over it. In today's society the traditional view of British constitution can not be upheld, it does however make the parliament more flexible in the sense that it can change the constitution as the country develops and as public opinion changes, yet wouldn't this make it easier for a dictator to come to power Understandably, the prime minister a lot of power due to royal prerogative powers being passed down e.g. declaration of war, however the misconceptions that the media has created in the sense Tony Blair himself can decide to go into war without anyone else's support is unreasonable. He must still discuss the matter with advisors, and also cabinet can still overrule the prime minister, for example Margaret Thatcher, who was removed as party leader. For all of the above to be true there must be some sort of constitution in the UK, although it is not codified the government must still operate under a framework, and does have restraints for example quangos such as WDA on certain issues, however due to the fact the government sets up these quangos usually have the same opinions as the party in power. The courts however do have a greater influence over the government, as they are a separate body that has the power to restrain the parliament on certain law issues. Yet things such as the Human Rights Act ensure that all UK citizens know what rights they have, and it also had to be reformed to keep in European Convention, this brings along my final point of the UK's membership of the European Union ensures the UK adheres to the European laws, many of these are the same as British laws, and hence for the most part the constitution is adhered to. In conclusion, it is not vital that the constitution is codified to ensure it is used, the government recognises it works within a frame, respects the law and operates within the constitutional system. There are regular elections, which on its own shows there is some sort of constitution within the UK. The parliament wouldn't be able to get away with not acting constitutionally all the time, however there are ways in which it can act unconstitutionally, and no other body can stop them. Yet, the monarchy has the ultimate power so hence can generally stop parliament if need be. So, to a certain extent the UK has a constitutional government that adheres to, yet the unwritten constitution can still provide a framework for the government. The Labour Government has set in motion a rolling programme of devolution, which can move at different speeds to meet the needs of the different regions of the United Kingdom. It is likely to take a long time to reach anything like its conclusion, and it must always be remembered that devolution is a process, not an event. It is very unlikely that the United Kingdom will ever have a symmetrical system of devolution, as the needs and desires of different regions are not and will not be the same. Bibliography Allan, T.R. S. Law, Liberty, and Justice: The Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1993. Bobbitt, Philip. Constitutional Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, revised ed., 2006. Elster, Jon and Rune Slagstad, eds. Constitutionalism and Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Graber, Mark A. Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Read More