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

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,