Serina Shrestha
Examine the differences in the way rights are protected in the US and UK. (12
marks)
One of the main difference in the way rights are protected in the UK and US is the difference in
constitutional protection of rights. The Bill of Rights and later amendments such as the 14 th amendment
in the US are entrenched which means that they are difficult to change. It is subject to complex
amendment procedures. Whereas rights in the UK, they come from multiple sources and are not
entrenched, it is easier to change as a simple Act of Parliament can change it. The Bill of Rights in the US
protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of
assembly and the freedom to petition. Among the legal protections it affords, the Bill of Rights prohibits
Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal
government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Whereas,
in the UK without a codified constitution, people in Britain have relied on what the early 20 th century
constitution theorist A.V Dicey called ‘the three pillars of liberty’. In UK, rights are not entrenched, they
are enumerated on what is ordinary legislation, unprotected by special amendment procedure. US
constitution is entrenched and is subject to complex amendment procedure means that the rights
enshrined in the US constitution are difficult to remove whereas, in the UK the lack of entrenchment
means there is less over-complicated procedure in overturning rights, which is perhaps the reason for
the UK government introducing Investigatory Powers Act 2016 which many argue limits rights which is
far easier as it only requires an act of parliament.
Another difference in protection rights in UK and US is the difference in the role of judiciary when
protecting rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified fundamental rights not explicitly stated in the
Constitution. U.S. courts provide a remedy for people whose constitutional rights have been violated.
For e.g. the Supreme Court established segregation of schools to be unconstitutional in the Brown V
Topeka case as it violated the 14th amendment of protecting citizenship rights. US judges are the
arbitrates of the US constitution placing them are the from when it comes to protection of rights. The
difficulty of changing the US constitution means that judicial rulings are often considered final, this is
why the legalisation of gay marriage in Obergefell case had such a big impact resulting in changing many
state laws. While in UK the ease with which governments can alter judicial rulings by simple act of
parliament gives judges less power in effecting rights. Whereas in the US the Supreme Court can strike
down on laws passed by the legislature. The Supreme Court in the UK cannot strike down laws passed by
the UK parliament as it is the highest form of law and pinnacle of the UK constitution whereas the US it
is not the elected politicians or congress that is at the top, it is the US constitution therefore judges can
strike down laws that are made by politicians.
Along with, there is difference in the role of elected institutions and representatives in UK and US in
protecting rights. In US the federal system has meant that there are multiple locations to protect rights.
The U.S. Congress also passes laws that protect constitutional rights, the most important of these
domestic laws are those that prohibit discrimination, including discrimination based on race, gender,
religion, or disability. Whereas in the UK with its executive dominance of the legislature in a unitary
constitution there are fewer places to defend rights. In the UK constitutional system, it is generally
assumed that the political branches of government should play a leading role in resolving disputes about
the scope and substance of individual rights. In addition to the HRA, the common law and other statutes
passed by Parliament also play an important role in protecting individual rights by imposing important
Examine the differences in the way rights are protected in the US and UK. (12
marks)
One of the main difference in the way rights are protected in the UK and US is the difference in
constitutional protection of rights. The Bill of Rights and later amendments such as the 14 th amendment
in the US are entrenched which means that they are difficult to change. It is subject to complex
amendment procedures. Whereas rights in the UK, they come from multiple sources and are not
entrenched, it is easier to change as a simple Act of Parliament can change it. The Bill of Rights in the US
protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of
assembly and the freedom to petition. Among the legal protections it affords, the Bill of Rights prohibits
Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal
government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Whereas,
in the UK without a codified constitution, people in Britain have relied on what the early 20 th century
constitution theorist A.V Dicey called ‘the three pillars of liberty’. In UK, rights are not entrenched, they
are enumerated on what is ordinary legislation, unprotected by special amendment procedure. US
constitution is entrenched and is subject to complex amendment procedure means that the rights
enshrined in the US constitution are difficult to remove whereas, in the UK the lack of entrenchment
means there is less over-complicated procedure in overturning rights, which is perhaps the reason for
the UK government introducing Investigatory Powers Act 2016 which many argue limits rights which is
far easier as it only requires an act of parliament.
Another difference in protection rights in UK and US is the difference in the role of judiciary when
protecting rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified fundamental rights not explicitly stated in the
Constitution. U.S. courts provide a remedy for people whose constitutional rights have been violated.
For e.g. the Supreme Court established segregation of schools to be unconstitutional in the Brown V
Topeka case as it violated the 14th amendment of protecting citizenship rights. US judges are the
arbitrates of the US constitution placing them are the from when it comes to protection of rights. The
difficulty of changing the US constitution means that judicial rulings are often considered final, this is
why the legalisation of gay marriage in Obergefell case had such a big impact resulting in changing many
state laws. While in UK the ease with which governments can alter judicial rulings by simple act of
parliament gives judges less power in effecting rights. Whereas in the US the Supreme Court can strike
down on laws passed by the legislature. The Supreme Court in the UK cannot strike down laws passed by
the UK parliament as it is the highest form of law and pinnacle of the UK constitution whereas the US it
is not the elected politicians or congress that is at the top, it is the US constitution therefore judges can
strike down laws that are made by politicians.
Along with, there is difference in the role of elected institutions and representatives in UK and US in
protecting rights. In US the federal system has meant that there are multiple locations to protect rights.
The U.S. Congress also passes laws that protect constitutional rights, the most important of these
domestic laws are those that prohibit discrimination, including discrimination based on race, gender,
religion, or disability. Whereas in the UK with its executive dominance of the legislature in a unitary
constitution there are fewer places to defend rights. In the UK constitutional system, it is generally
assumed that the political branches of government should play a leading role in resolving disputes about
the scope and substance of individual rights. In addition to the HRA, the common law and other statutes
passed by Parliament also play an important role in protecting individual rights by imposing important
