The American people made the conscious decision that they didn’t want an evolved constitution held together by traditions and statute law, like they had witnessed in England. They sought something better and came up with a codified constitution. One question remains; is the US constitution the improvement that they sought?

One clear difference between the two constitutions is the fact that one is codified and the other isn’t. There are implications regarding the flexibility of the constitutions according to whether or not they are codified. The English constitution is flexible in the sense that there are no special majorities or arrangements needed to change the constitution, it can be done via the normal legislative process. In direct contrast to this the American constitution is rigid, it is entrenched against the whims of subsequent government who may want to change it, as it requires a substantial majority to make any amendments.

With theses varying degrees of flexibility come both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the US constitution being entrenched are that it is clearly outlined and it cannot

be subject to abuse. The strength of the UK constitution is in its flexibility the fact that it is evolved and has been able to change with the circumstances, for example the recent devolution in both Scotland and Wales. However such an crucial strength comes an equally important weakness, the fact that the constitution is not entrench and can be changed so easily leaves it vulnerable to abuse. Having said that though realistically no government is going to make constitutional changes without the backing of the political nation in the knowledge that they have to face re-election within five years. The government also have to get majority support in the house of commons which may not be as fourth coming from MP’s who know their constituents are against such changes. No government in their right mind would attempt to change the constitution without wide spread support. In the event of such constitution change all political parties are normally consulted so to enable the government of the time to take the credit for the changes without the threat of being held responsible, as at the time it was a general consensus that brought about such changes. In addition to consultation government (more) commonly (in recent times) holds referendums to ensure national support for any changes.

In the British constitution the accepted principle is that the judiciary is formally separated from both the executive and the legislature and functions without political interference.

Unelected representatives protect the rights of the American people. Is it better to have your individual and constitutional rights decided by ‘illegitimate’ judges or for them to be made of statue law? At least with the UK constitution the people that are making the changes to the constitution are elected representatives of the citizens whom such changes will directly or indirectly affect. It could be argued though the American constitution does in fact goes further. It protects the constitution through the elected representatives, and then goes even further to ensure no political bias by introducing judges (who’s political perspective is relatively neutral) to decide if the change will be beneficial to the American people. Then however we are back to the point about whether it is better to have a constitution that can openly evolve with the times.

Both constitutions need consent in some form or another to be changed but I feel that the luxury of evolution outweighs the minimal risk of abuse. Another issue is that the Individual rights of people cannot be guaranteed by the UK Constitution as they can in the US never the less the US cannot easily improve one’s rights as the UK can. However if an unwritten and uncodified constitution was in place in America it may suffer more in this way because America is a very large country to run by tradition, where every state has it own traditions and character. There is a sense in which the states need a

Some topics in this essay:
House Representatives, Scotland Wales, Lord Hailsham, , UK Constitution, House Commons, Representatives Bush, Prime Minister, Tony Blair, uk constitution, house representatives, american people, political parties, relevant times, senate house, Senate House, senate house representatives, constitution elected representatives, american constitution, constitution america, constitution elected, codified isn’t, house representatives bush,