Arguments against a codified constituition

A codified constitution is a set of rules and key constitutional provisions collected in one single document also known as a written constitution. The I-JK currently has an uncodified constitution which consists of historical, literature writing such as AV Diceys writing on key aspects of a constitution. There are arguments over introducing a codified constitution in Britain Just like France, Russia, Germany and the USA have. This essay will go through four arguments against introducing a codified constitution.

To begin with, countries who have adapted a codified constitution have faced a violent revolution or some sort of political nurse for example; Russia has faced several different revolutions i. e. the 1905 revolution, 1917 revolution. France, USA, Russia, Afghanistan, India and Germany have also faced political unrest or also referred to it as a ‘constitutional moment’. These written constitutions were introduced because the people were unhappy.

But in Britain there has not been any major disruption instead Britain holds a stable political system and therefore no such hing as a codified constitution is needed to put laws and regulations as well as power in place and practice. Secondly, Britain government is strong and decisive without having written constitutional restrictions which comes with introducing a codified constitution. Not having too many restrictions enables Parliament to be sovereign and hold ultimate power.

This allows the government to deal with any issues itself in need without having too much interference from anywhere else which could delay decision making time and affect the decision made. An example of where this happens in in the USA. The government and congress of USA cannot make all decisions and act as freely as the British Government due to the fear of the written constitution preventing this action (restricted to act against crime in the USA). Whereas the British government acts decisively and is unrestricted by constitutional restraints.

Another reason as to why having a codified constitution is not a good idea is because a codified constitution involves courts such as The Supreme Court, the ystem would become Judiciable and can also bring in conflict between power distribution and. This can also affect the involvement and relations with the EIJ and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland keeping in mind that issues with distribution of power still exist (i. e. Scottish Devolution which will be decided in Sept 2014) however having a codified constitution will increase this.

With a codified constitution the constitution becomes Judicial which involves non-elected Judges. This makes them less accountable for their decisions. Having this means having a ess democratic system as political issues are not handled by elected representatives. Lastly, the biggest disadvantage is that making changes will be restricted and will be time consuming. The current constitutions allow the Gov. or the Parliament to alter certain laws or add in new ones to fit the changing society. But by introducing a codified constitution these actions will be restricted as they will be in a single document.

Not only that but, a codification automatically makes the constitution entrenched meaning it is harder to amend the laws to match the society and ecomes irrelevant at one point as they become less reflective of the society and its needs. An example of this is the gun law in the USA. It was considered reasonable to dangerous as it affects the safety of people around you. However, due to the constitution being entrenched the government cannot amend this law and therefore is not too effective. On the other, the British parliament was allowed to interfere in the 2010 elections when the turn out of the votes was indecisive.

Because of the fact that the British constitution was not entrenched (as it’s uncodified) the parliament as allowed to decide to have a coalition government without involving the monarch and prevent conflict, nut also save time. If the constitution was codified, it would have been harder to come toa decision this easily. In conclusion, the biggest disadvantage of a codified constitution is that it will become entrenched and therefore harder to amend laws. It will also be less responding to a change in political climate. We are benefiting from an uncodified constitution compared to other countries are and therefore should continue doing so.