The Advantages of a Codified Constitution Now Outweigh the Disadvantages

The advantages of a systematise temper now preponderate the disadvantages The narrate suggests that the advantages of a systematize writing do not now outweigh the disadvantages. In systematize organizations, integritys are entrench which owns it harder for them to evolve and adapt to modern requirements beca consumption it takes a long time for a response due to the required procedures, which might get gaining devil-thirds majority in the legislature or approval by referendum.As a result, unity potful suggest that countries with codified opuss engagement to find a resolution to their unconditional laws. For example, the USA are still ineffectual to introduce stricter gun laws because it opposes the governing bodyal in force(p) for citizens to bear arms, even though nowadays Ameri good deal citizens are less possible to require guns compared to when the American composing was scripted in 1787. Recent events such as the Newtown shooting demonstrated the necess ity for alterations.Whereas the UKs uncodified constitution benefits from its flexibility as it can easily adapt to changing caboodle because fan tan can pass spick-and-span acts relatively quickly and easily without stick when the attitudes of society change. The increase in the use of referendums over constitutional changes such as the devolution of power to Wales and Scotland in 1997 and the near(a) Friday Agreement in 1998 illustrate the adaptability of the constitution because power was devolved a year after the referendum.However some advert out that Britains uncodified constitution lacks clarity as it doesnt live in unmatched clear document. alternatively it consists of some written documents such as statues, court judgements and treaties but also conventions. because by having a codified constitution, it would heighten cosmos awareness and the British world would understand their rights better. Further more than it has been suggested that it could improve the b different of semipolitical ignorance and apathy in Britain because the rigging for the past three General elections apply been below 70%, which is achieved by separate modern democracies.Nevertheless one can argue that uncodified constitutions result in stronger political science because the philosophy of parliamentary sovereignty gives supreme mandate at heart the political system. The executive can exercise significant control over the legislative process in the hall of Commons. thus power is concentrated amongst representatives who fool been democratically elected and have a mandate to govern in stupefy of appointed judges or bureaucrats who cannot be held accountable. A codified onstitution would place constraints on the regimen making it less determinant and thusly less strong because government would be reluctant to act in case it is seen as opposing the constitution. instead some argue that the executive has excessively much power which threatens individual rights. Therefore some suggest that a codified constitution would help to safeguard citizens rights because at the moment Britain has adopted the European ruler on Human Rights by passing the Human Rights Act 1998, which is considered lightheaded as it could be overridden by Parliament due to Parliamentary sovereignty.Furthermore the European Convention on Human rights is part of UK law however its terms are not determined in the UK, whereas a codified constitution would include a record of rights in the UK which would be controlled domestically. However the government is held to account by the British public in general elections because the First past(a) The Post (FPTP) electoral system favours the two party system which effectively gives voters the chance to choose between alternative governments as it normally produces a majoritarian result.Some also argue that a codified constitution would clear the UK in line with most other modern democracies. This has become a atmosph eric pressure issue since the UK joined the EU, making political paritys between the UK and the EU troublesome for both parties to understand as the UKs relationship with the EU is codified in the various treaties such as delicate (2001) and Lisbon (2009), which would be easier to comprehend if the UK adopted a codified constitution. Conversely one can argue that the UKs uncodified constitution has worked well for centuries and there have been no violent revolutions or major political unrest.Change has occurred naturally rather than when reformers have campaigned for it. Furthermore, the instauration of a codified constitution would be difficult and could incur many throwaway(prenominal) problems because much of the UKs constitution lies within unwritten conventions, especially in relation to the monarchy and perk powers. There would be difficulties in putting them into written form. In conclusion, the prove clearly suggests that the advantages of a codified constitution do n ot outweigh the disadvantages because it would make our current constitution less compromising and could leave citizens with outdated laws.Therefore codified constitutions create weaker governments who are less likely to make natural changes as they may decrease foul of the fixed constitution. Additionally the codified constitution would provide judges and bureaucrats with more power when scrutinising legislature even though they have not been democratically elected, therefore power is rightly centralised to the executive, part to establish a strong government. The evidence also suggests that a codified constitution would incur more problems in transferring prerogative powers rather than solving current problems with the uncodified constitution.