Evaluate the view that the UK constitution should be codified
- Executive too powerful
- HRA- entrenched?? - better protects rights
- Power of judiciary vs unitary and parliamentary sovereignty
Executive too powerful with uncodified Executive not too powerful with uncodified
- Johnson repealed the Fixed Term - Highly democratic as parliament can
Parliaments Act in 2022 so can call then respond to the will of the
an early action to his advantage people more efficiently
- Blair - got maj - changed house of
lords - got rid of all but 93 hereditary
peers
- In USA, with a codified constitution,
despite Obama promising gun
reform and to stop detention camps
in Guantanamo Bay, this did not
happen
- Trapped by codified constitution -
US only 27 times since 1787
Codified with help Human Rights Uncodified has been fine for human rights
- Andrew Barnett 'In Britain today the - Flexibility means uncodified has
government can alter the laws helped rights
affecting your freedom of speech in - Gay marriage legalised in 2014
the same way it amends laws about - 1996 Dunblane Massacre = ban on
dog licensing. ' handguns
- Statute law can easily be changed - Same for other countries with
via a majority in parliament inc HR uncodified like New Zealand where
- Conservative manifesto pledged to after the 2019 Christchurch
get rid of HRA massacre there was a ban on
semiautomatic weapons
- Double jeopardy has been permitted
since 2003 and helpful for cases like
the Stephen Lawrence case
Judiciary can hold gov to account efficiently No need for this benefit
- Supreme Court has held the gov to - Judiciary are an unelected body
account via 2019 proroguing case - A key principle of UK constitution is
- Supreme Court has held gov parliamentary sovereignty which is
account via 2017 Gina Miller case overrode if judiciary gains more
- More legitimacy in political process power
- Judiciary out of touch as explain by
1960s Griffith Thesis
- Judiciary in USA have lots of power
but now to do with controversies like
Roe v Wade being overturned to
illegalise abortion in the USA - under
scrutiny by general public - is it fair
for an unelected to declare this?
, Evaluate the view that the principles of the UK constitution have changed beyond recognition
- Rule of Law: all citizens under the law are all equal and everybody must obey the law
- Parliamentary sovereignty - have absolute and unlimited power and can make or
unmake any law
- Upholding Human Rights
Rule of Law has been upheld Rule of law has not been upheld
- MPs can be held to account - - Dominic Cummings breached
Parliamentary Expenses Scandal lockdown rules in 2020 but did not
2009 face tough fines contrary to what he
- Freedom of Informations Act was known to push for
- Partygate exposed 2022 - Johnson
only got 1 fine
- 2021 -Johnson’s plans to restrict
judicial review means that rule of
law is restricted as well
Parliamentary sovereignty is upheld Parliamentary sovereignty is not upheld
- In practise, as laws were created by - In reality if the UK restricted
parliament, they can also be rid of devolution, that would lead to a
by parliament rebellion because of how popular it
- Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is (especially in Scotland as they
- Nothing is above that continuously vote in SNP who want
to leave the UK)
- Supreme Court are very powerful -
stopped proroguing of parliament in
2019
- Sovereignty especially eroded when
gov is a minority (2017 Gina Miller
case and Supreme Court ruling)
- Policy diversions in devolved areas -
Scotland have free uni fees - if
devolved areas make own laws
above Westminster - sovereignty is
eroded
Rights are protected Rights are not protected
- Same Sex - Surveillance state - ⅕ of world’s CCTV in the UK (as of
Marriage 2014 2019 - 2nd most in Europe)
- HRA = protection - Edward Snowden uncovered that UK were monitoring
of rights phone calls
- Secret Trials since 2014
- Johnson in 2019 manifesto pledged to get rid of HRA
- Are some rights more important than others? - Ashers
Bakery Case 2018 - Supreme Court ruled in favour of
the baker who refused to write ‘Support Gay Rights’
for a gay wedding
- Question of whether collective rights or individual
rights take precedence
- Executive too powerful
- HRA- entrenched?? - better protects rights
- Power of judiciary vs unitary and parliamentary sovereignty
Executive too powerful with uncodified Executive not too powerful with uncodified
- Johnson repealed the Fixed Term - Highly democratic as parliament can
Parliaments Act in 2022 so can call then respond to the will of the
an early action to his advantage people more efficiently
- Blair - got maj - changed house of
lords - got rid of all but 93 hereditary
peers
- In USA, with a codified constitution,
despite Obama promising gun
reform and to stop detention camps
in Guantanamo Bay, this did not
happen
- Trapped by codified constitution -
US only 27 times since 1787
Codified with help Human Rights Uncodified has been fine for human rights
- Andrew Barnett 'In Britain today the - Flexibility means uncodified has
government can alter the laws helped rights
affecting your freedom of speech in - Gay marriage legalised in 2014
the same way it amends laws about - 1996 Dunblane Massacre = ban on
dog licensing. ' handguns
- Statute law can easily be changed - Same for other countries with
via a majority in parliament inc HR uncodified like New Zealand where
- Conservative manifesto pledged to after the 2019 Christchurch
get rid of HRA massacre there was a ban on
semiautomatic weapons
- Double jeopardy has been permitted
since 2003 and helpful for cases like
the Stephen Lawrence case
Judiciary can hold gov to account efficiently No need for this benefit
- Supreme Court has held the gov to - Judiciary are an unelected body
account via 2019 proroguing case - A key principle of UK constitution is
- Supreme Court has held gov parliamentary sovereignty which is
account via 2017 Gina Miller case overrode if judiciary gains more
- More legitimacy in political process power
- Judiciary out of touch as explain by
1960s Griffith Thesis
- Judiciary in USA have lots of power
but now to do with controversies like
Roe v Wade being overturned to
illegalise abortion in the USA - under
scrutiny by general public - is it fair
for an unelected to declare this?
, Evaluate the view that the principles of the UK constitution have changed beyond recognition
- Rule of Law: all citizens under the law are all equal and everybody must obey the law
- Parliamentary sovereignty - have absolute and unlimited power and can make or
unmake any law
- Upholding Human Rights
Rule of Law has been upheld Rule of law has not been upheld
- MPs can be held to account - - Dominic Cummings breached
Parliamentary Expenses Scandal lockdown rules in 2020 but did not
2009 face tough fines contrary to what he
- Freedom of Informations Act was known to push for
- Partygate exposed 2022 - Johnson
only got 1 fine
- 2021 -Johnson’s plans to restrict
judicial review means that rule of
law is restricted as well
Parliamentary sovereignty is upheld Parliamentary sovereignty is not upheld
- In practise, as laws were created by - In reality if the UK restricted
parliament, they can also be rid of devolution, that would lead to a
by parliament rebellion because of how popular it
- Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is (especially in Scotland as they
- Nothing is above that continuously vote in SNP who want
to leave the UK)
- Supreme Court are very powerful -
stopped proroguing of parliament in
2019
- Sovereignty especially eroded when
gov is a minority (2017 Gina Miller
case and Supreme Court ruling)
- Policy diversions in devolved areas -
Scotland have free uni fees - if
devolved areas make own laws
above Westminster - sovereignty is
eroded
Rights are protected Rights are not protected
- Same Sex - Surveillance state - ⅕ of world’s CCTV in the UK (as of
Marriage 2014 2019 - 2nd most in Europe)
- HRA = protection - Edward Snowden uncovered that UK were monitoring
of rights phone calls
- Secret Trials since 2014
- Johnson in 2019 manifesto pledged to get rid of HRA
- Are some rights more important than others? - Ashers
Bakery Case 2018 - Supreme Court ruled in favour of
the baker who refused to write ‘Support Gay Rights’
for a gay wedding
- Question of whether collective rights or individual
rights take precedence
