A constitution is the fundamental law whether it be written or unwritten PDF

Preview

Summary

Revison materials...

Description

a)

A constitution is the fundamental law whether it be written or unwritten, it establishes the basic principles to which a state must conform as well as the relationship between its citizens and the state. Set of rules that govern a state.

a)

The UK does not have a written constitution but is rather derived from case law, statutes and conventions. Conventions play a key role in the UK constitution. Constitutional conventions control the exercise of the prerogative powers of the Monarch AV Dicey

b) c)

a)

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

There are many arguments for the UK adopting a codified constitution: Rules made clearer, set in one document rather than various - Would create less confusion with regard to constitutional rules and provide greater certainty of them being enforced. A codified constitution would limit governmental power, which would reduce the government, which could rule out the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, as they will not be able to interfere with the law. Conventions work within a framework allowing more efficiency a. Higher law b. educational value; in a sense that it would strengthen the citizenship within the state, as it shall set out the goals of the political parties making it more clearer as to their political identity and how their powers may be exercised which is of much importance in this multicultural society today. Protect individual right, individual liberty more protected. c. abuse of power, more stability if written. Uncodified creates problems as no limits imposed on gov so can use to their advantage

Considered to be rigid; higher law more difficult to change than statute law Not flexible; cannot be amended easily, will be come legally enforceable if codified Flexibility very important in the ever so changing society we live in today; Judicial Tyranny, power invested in house of common codified it would be policed by judges. Abolish Parliamentary Sovereignty which is the principle in which parliament can make and unmake law. And with codification this will not be done. Takes away the long standing history of the uk

It appears that Jay and Robin are not entirely happy with the Act that has been implemented. The courts would not be able to overturn or question a decision made by a legal authority of An Act of Parliament due to the doctrine of supremacy of Parliament. An alternative that Robin and jay have is seeking judicial review in order to have.. In doing this they would need to put an application forward applying for permission to the Administrative court, within a 3 month time frame of the decision using the appropriate claim form and supporting documentation. (part 54 civil procedure rules Jay and Robin would need to establish whether the defendants have acted ultra vires -:beyond legal power. AG v Fulham Corp 1921. Grounds of review in CCSU v Minister for civil service 1984

Illegality abuse of discretion, taking irrelevant factors into account when making decisions, and not considering relevant factors. In the case of Fewings 1995 a similar case was reviewed when an Act was implemented to ban stag hunting as it was believed to be immoral. Remedy most appropriate is quashing order to nullify the decision....