US 25 Mark Essays
Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments for and against an entrenched
US constitution
'In the USA, the rights of individual citizens are greatly protected, yet there are
no such safeguards in the UK'
'Has the Bill of rights stood the test of time'
'The constitution is not fit for purpose'
'Citizen's rights are well protected by the US constitution'
Intro:
- The UK lacks a codified constitution compared to other countries like the
US
# instead, sources of constitution can be found through statute law,
common law and conventions
- US constitution drafted by FF to prevent tyranny
- The US codified constitutions would allow for greater entrenchment
# better protection of rights
# this could give judges power to interpret constitution of make decisions
that protect citizens against government actions
however, especially with devolution, constitution does not prevent
overreaching government
- The UK uncodified constitutions means less clarity and vagueness
(reducing government power)
# however, due to parliamentary government has great legislative power
P1
Point:
- UK constitution is flexible, while US is rigid and archaic
# has proven to be flexible and adaptable due to unwritten nature
# the principles of a constitution must reflect wider society
Must be able to change over time, in order to keep up with
everchanging nature of society
# uncodified means it can be easily updated to meet modern needs
In 1998, the Scotland Act was passed, granting primary and secondary
legislative power to Scottish parliament after greater demand for
independence
# highlights flexibility
- The constitution is highly responsive to social and political pressure
2013 Marriage Act legalising same sex marriage
# there is no need for a codified constitution as current system is capable
to adapting to problems
- Unsuccessful reforms to HRA
2022 Bill of Rights bill (also mocked as the removal of rights bill)
# lowered level of protection given to human rights
Synoptic Link – Links to organic conservative view of constitution
championed by Burke
- US constitution fixed and rarely changes
- 11,000 amendments proposed
# unable to change over time
- Hyper partisanship
, US 25 Mark Essays
# less likely future amendments
prevents important rights from being protected
Equal Rights Amendment (Introduced in 1923 then reintroduced in 1971)
--> equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex
- Keeps archaic institutions like Electoral College
# unrepresentative
voters more educated since FF
Link:
- UK constitution better
# more representative to modern times
P2
Point:
- In the UK, supreme court decides whether government actions are ultra
vires and can issue "declaration of incompatibility"
1998 HRA
however parliamentary sovereignty means the courts cannot overturn
acts of parliament
# Furthermore, parliament can also change the law the override judicial
review
HM Treasury vs Ahmed (2010) – freezing of accounts
# Brown passed Terrorist Asset Freezing act overriding SC
Miller vs Secretary of State for Exiting EU
# SC ruled PM could not use power to enact article 50
European Union Act 2017
Safety of Rwanda Bill 2024
# SC unable to apply domestic and international law
- Fusion of powers
# gov is successful in legislation agenda
weak checks and balances
# as a result, the supreme court are subject the parliament, undermining
their power and their decisions
# rights are not safeguarded
- US SC can interpret the Bill of Rights and other amendments
# landmark decisions which provide precedent for future cases
- Under Marbury v Maddison, judges have quasi legislative power
# can interpret constitution laws
- Amendments ensure that rights are entrenched
# SC can easily strike down laws that are unconstitutional
Roe vs Wade 1973 which used the due process clause of 14th Amendment to imply that the
"right to privacy" included a women's right to abortion
Brown vs Board of Education
- Constitutional sov vs parl sov
# amendments difficult to change
supermajority Congress & three quarters state legislatures
# FFI to be difficult to change
- US SC have greater judicial power and thier decisions hold more weight
, US 25 Mark Essays
Link:
- US constitution better
# constitutional sovereignty makes constitution higher law (more robust legal system)
parliament only legal authority
P3
Point:
- However, the UK does not need a codified constitution as it gives too
much power to unelected and unaccountable judges
# judges lack legitimacy to make such important decisions
- In the UK, power lies with elected officials who have a mandate to make
decisions
# enhances representative democracy
- Uncodified constitution allows judges to uphold judicial independence
2005 CRA
# seperation of powers
# rights are better protected
- Codified constitution makes judges politicised
# appointed by POTUS
# threaten democracy due to less seperation of powers
judges chosen with similar constitutional interpretations
e.g. Bush appointing Scalia (conservative originalist)
# leads to political judgments
Gore vs Bush (2000)
they can overturn old precedent that established rights
Like in Dobbs vs Jackson 20022, the SC overturned Roe vs Wade 1973
# which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion
'Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments for and against the claim that
Gridlock is an inevitable consequence of the US system of government'
'Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments that 'Congress in its committee
rooms is Congress at work'
'Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments that Congress is effective in its
oversight of the executive branch'
'Congressional committees in the US have far too much power whilst parlia-
mentary committee in the UK have far too little
‘Both the UK Parliament and US Congress find scrutiny and control of the exec-
utive extremely difficult.’ Analyse and evaluate this statement.
‘Legislation in the US Congress is far better considered than that of the legisla-
tion produced in the UK Houses of Parliament.’ Analyse and evaluate this state-
ment.
‘The scrutiny powers of the Westminster Parliament are less effective than
those of Congress.’ Analyse and evaluate this statement.
Intro:
- Seperation of powers
# Article 1 of the constitution
Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments for and against an entrenched
US constitution
'In the USA, the rights of individual citizens are greatly protected, yet there are
no such safeguards in the UK'
'Has the Bill of rights stood the test of time'
'The constitution is not fit for purpose'
'Citizen's rights are well protected by the US constitution'
Intro:
- The UK lacks a codified constitution compared to other countries like the
US
# instead, sources of constitution can be found through statute law,
common law and conventions
- US constitution drafted by FF to prevent tyranny
- The US codified constitutions would allow for greater entrenchment
# better protection of rights
# this could give judges power to interpret constitution of make decisions
that protect citizens against government actions
however, especially with devolution, constitution does not prevent
overreaching government
- The UK uncodified constitutions means less clarity and vagueness
(reducing government power)
# however, due to parliamentary government has great legislative power
P1
Point:
- UK constitution is flexible, while US is rigid and archaic
# has proven to be flexible and adaptable due to unwritten nature
# the principles of a constitution must reflect wider society
Must be able to change over time, in order to keep up with
everchanging nature of society
# uncodified means it can be easily updated to meet modern needs
In 1998, the Scotland Act was passed, granting primary and secondary
legislative power to Scottish parliament after greater demand for
independence
# highlights flexibility
- The constitution is highly responsive to social and political pressure
2013 Marriage Act legalising same sex marriage
# there is no need for a codified constitution as current system is capable
to adapting to problems
- Unsuccessful reforms to HRA
2022 Bill of Rights bill (also mocked as the removal of rights bill)
# lowered level of protection given to human rights
Synoptic Link – Links to organic conservative view of constitution
championed by Burke
- US constitution fixed and rarely changes
- 11,000 amendments proposed
# unable to change over time
- Hyper partisanship
, US 25 Mark Essays
# less likely future amendments
prevents important rights from being protected
Equal Rights Amendment (Introduced in 1923 then reintroduced in 1971)
--> equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex
- Keeps archaic institutions like Electoral College
# unrepresentative
voters more educated since FF
Link:
- UK constitution better
# more representative to modern times
P2
Point:
- In the UK, supreme court decides whether government actions are ultra
vires and can issue "declaration of incompatibility"
1998 HRA
however parliamentary sovereignty means the courts cannot overturn
acts of parliament
# Furthermore, parliament can also change the law the override judicial
review
HM Treasury vs Ahmed (2010) – freezing of accounts
# Brown passed Terrorist Asset Freezing act overriding SC
Miller vs Secretary of State for Exiting EU
# SC ruled PM could not use power to enact article 50
European Union Act 2017
Safety of Rwanda Bill 2024
# SC unable to apply domestic and international law
- Fusion of powers
# gov is successful in legislation agenda
weak checks and balances
# as a result, the supreme court are subject the parliament, undermining
their power and their decisions
# rights are not safeguarded
- US SC can interpret the Bill of Rights and other amendments
# landmark decisions which provide precedent for future cases
- Under Marbury v Maddison, judges have quasi legislative power
# can interpret constitution laws
- Amendments ensure that rights are entrenched
# SC can easily strike down laws that are unconstitutional
Roe vs Wade 1973 which used the due process clause of 14th Amendment to imply that the
"right to privacy" included a women's right to abortion
Brown vs Board of Education
- Constitutional sov vs parl sov
# amendments difficult to change
supermajority Congress & three quarters state legislatures
# FFI to be difficult to change
- US SC have greater judicial power and thier decisions hold more weight
, US 25 Mark Essays
Link:
- US constitution better
# constitutional sovereignty makes constitution higher law (more robust legal system)
parliament only legal authority
P3
Point:
- However, the UK does not need a codified constitution as it gives too
much power to unelected and unaccountable judges
# judges lack legitimacy to make such important decisions
- In the UK, power lies with elected officials who have a mandate to make
decisions
# enhances representative democracy
- Uncodified constitution allows judges to uphold judicial independence
2005 CRA
# seperation of powers
# rights are better protected
- Codified constitution makes judges politicised
# appointed by POTUS
# threaten democracy due to less seperation of powers
judges chosen with similar constitutional interpretations
e.g. Bush appointing Scalia (conservative originalist)
# leads to political judgments
Gore vs Bush (2000)
they can overturn old precedent that established rights
Like in Dobbs vs Jackson 20022, the SC overturned Roe vs Wade 1973
# which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion
'Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments for and against the claim that
Gridlock is an inevitable consequence of the US system of government'
'Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments that 'Congress in its committee
rooms is Congress at work'
'Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments that Congress is effective in its
oversight of the executive branch'
'Congressional committees in the US have far too much power whilst parlia-
mentary committee in the UK have far too little
‘Both the UK Parliament and US Congress find scrutiny and control of the exec-
utive extremely difficult.’ Analyse and evaluate this statement.
‘Legislation in the US Congress is far better considered than that of the legisla-
tion produced in the UK Houses of Parliament.’ Analyse and evaluate this state-
ment.
‘The scrutiny powers of the Westminster Parliament are less effective than
those of Congress.’ Analyse and evaluate this statement.
Intro:
- Seperation of powers
# Article 1 of the constitution
