A codified constitution PDF

Preview

Summary

A codified constitution where the fundamental or basic laws establishing the framework of government are written down, with the major duties, powers and functions of the institutions of government and the rights and duties of individuals codified. An example of a codified constitution is the USA’s c...

Description

A codified constitution where the fundamental or basic laws establishing the framework of government are written down, with the major duties, powers and functions of the institutions of government and the rights and duties of individuals codified. An example of a codified constitution is the USA’s constitution, which is a clearly defined constitutional settlement.The UK’s constitution cannot be found codified in one document, but instead derive from a number of written and unwritten sources. These include accumulated conventions, Acts of Parliament, works of authority, common and EU law. It is increasingly common to hear that the UK's constitution is "becoming more codified" - in reality, more elements are now written, but that is not the same as being more codified.

In recent years there has been much debate about the need for a codified (written) constitution. In spite of the praises heaped on the mysterious virtues of the British Constitution, it’s unwritten, or uncodified, manifestation is not universally acclaimed.Lord Hailsham Lamenting the excessive concentration of power in the Government he stated in The Spectator Dimbleby Lecture 1976: ‘I have reached the conclusion that our Constitution is wearing out. Its central defects are gradually coming to outweigh its merits. I envisage nothing less than a written constitution for the UK. The fact that the constitution is uncodified means that it can never be said to be entirely known, it is always subject to interpretation and dispute. In Britain it is sometimes very difficult to come to a clear understanding of when a government is acting ‘constitutionally’ or not. Two areas of the constitutional framework are of particular concern: conventions and prerogative powers. Conventions are a grey area of the constitution. No rules exist to determine what is or not convention. ? According to Turpin ‘’Conventions are always emerging, crystallising and dissolving, and it is sometimes questionable whether a convention has been broken or has simply changed. If the constitution is codified and conventions codified as part of the written constitutional framework it would end this uncertainty and vagueness (Turpin). Like conventions much of the law concerning the prerogative is obscure. Some prerogative powers are very wide and difficulties arise when courts are asked to decide when an ancient prerogative applies in a new situation Critics of the uncodified constitution argue that in the UK the term ‘unconstitutional’ has no defined legal content. Supporter of the codified constitution assert that if all rules of the constitution are codified in legal form all breaches of the constitution would be challengeable in courts like USA, France or India. Dicey distinguished conventions from constitutional laws in two respects: (a) they are not recognized by the courts and (b) they are not enforced by the courts; whereas breaches of law are recognized and enforced by the courts. Although Jennings criticized Dicey’s approach/views the distinction drawn by Dicey regarding enforceability seems to be vindicated by case law (Adegbenro v Akintola (1963), Madzimbamuto v Lardner Burke (1969); Re Amendment of the constitution of Canada (1982)). There is not a single case in which the courts have enforced the breach of a convention including A G v Jonathan Cape Ltd (1976). A codified constitution lays down a special procedure under which the entrenched constitution can be changed.The purpose of such entrenchment is to protect key provisions (e.g. those relating to basic civil liberties) from passing whims and caprice of those who hold political office from time to time.The UK’s uncodified constitution has no entrenched restraining procedures.

Critics of the traditional uncodified constitution regard it as outdated and undemocratic. Prerogative powers exercised by the government on behalf of the Crown are not only ill defined (like conventions) but also uncontrolled. Codification of the British Constitution would put most prerogative powers (if not all) on a statutory basis and this would increase the supervision of the exercise of the powers more efficiently by the parliament (and also the courts). A codified constitution would also be able to tackle the issues of relationships with local governments and regional governments. It is alleged that there is too much power at the centre.A codified constitution would also tackle the centralization of power by setting out the powers and functions of the central government and subnational governments. Subnational governments would enjoy constitutional protection.A codified constitution is also likely to tackle the problem of elective dictatorship. Lord Hailsham in his Dimbleby Lecture 1976 described Britain as an ‘elective dictatorship’, referring to the fact that, once elected, the leadership of the majority party in the House of Commons can do more or less what it wants without constitutional checks and balances. Supporter of the traditional constitutional arrangement recognizes that improvements are required but believe that reform should be limited and pragmatic. Conservatives view the constitution as an organic body of rules rather than an artificial creation. It has evolved over time and reflects the history and enduring values of the British people.The organic view argues that a constitution grows and develops naturally like a living organism; for thinkers of this school it is a thing of untouchable beauty. Edmund Burke suggested that the constitution should be treated with religious awe as a repository of the collective wisdom of the ages.Blackstone’s view of the constitution with its veneration of the past would belong to this category and the cover of Sir Ivor Jennings Book the British Constitution (1966) is actually adorned with a picture of a spreading oak. Supporters of the traditional uncodified constitution see flexibility as another positive feature (as the mechanism of the constitution through which the constitution adapts smoothly and speedily). Certainly, it is true that the British constitution has been able to adapt to major changes. Conventions have the advantage that they allow constitutional change without requiring a formal change and allow the elected government to exercise powers flexibly in response to political realities. By contrast, it can be difficult to change a written constitution. A single codified constitution (especially an entrenched constitution) is subject to interpretation and gives rise to endless and pointless litigation. If the British Constitution is codified the great virtue of flexibility would be sacrificed: no longer could changes take place imperceptibly to accommodate restrained social developments. Flexibility is also provided by prerogative powers. The existence of prerogative powers enables the executive to take immediate decisions without need for Parliaments approval, in circumstances where prompt decisions are required. If the constitution is codified and with it pps there will be serious implications on this flexibility. The vital quality of the traditional uncodified constitution is that it provides for a strong and effective government. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty establishes supreme

authority within the political system. The control of Parliament by the core executive gives the governing party significant control over the legislative process and therefore the ability to carry out its electoral mandate without delay and without encountering the hindrances of too many constitutional restraints. An entrenched codified constitution, would remove the most basic feature of the British Political System - the sovereignty of Parliament. Laws and principles that have a higher authority than other legislation would take away what Walter Bagehot in 1867 called the ‘efficient secret’ of the system. Supporters of the traditional constitution also argue that the current arrangements provide adequate safeguards to control the power of the central government.Tony Blair and Gordon Brown introduced the most important package of constitutional reform in modern British history. Many of the rules, procedures and principles of the traditional were affected. Few key institutions remained untouched. Devolution, new electoral systems (at many levels), the Human Rights Act 1998, Decentralization by changes to local government, Parliamentary reform, House of Lords Act 1999, Judiciary CRA 2005, Prerogative powers CR+GA 2010, changed the constitutional landscape. Labour’s reforms were subjected to criticism from two broad perspectives: a liberal perspective that argued that the reforms did not go far enough and a conservative perspective that held that labour had damaged the traditional British Constitution.Liberal reformers argued that Blair and Brown had adopted a minimalist rather than a maximalist reform agenda which should include a written codified constitution, federal state, elected HOL, proportional rep, reform of monarchy, entrenched Bill of Rights, transfer of power to LAs. Conservative critique argues that Labour’s reforms damaged the fabric of the constitution so that its component parts no longer form a coherent and effective whole. The reforms brought new problems and Devolution raised questions about government; HRA increased the political role of the judiciary and opened up a can of worms on the nature of rights such as privacy. The Conservatives claimed that legislative devolution would break up the Union. The UK has had long-established doctrines, principles and codes of conduct that are embedded in the minds and hearts of its people. It has made the society into what it is today and above all the obstacles faced as in every other system, whether the constitution is written or unwritten they have managed to develop one of the best legal systems in the world and have an excellent system of governance.Many people believe that the system of an unwritten constitution works and works well. It has been created throughout the years that have seen the UK grow into what is today. It has been developed based on not only great events but great minds of the region giving it a distinct flavor of pride. Nothing is like its kind and it is definitely functional....