(7) A Codified Constitution for and against

Against
1. Rigidity
  1. Codified constitution tend to be more rigid than uncodified ones because higher laws is more difficult to change than statue law
  2. The constitution could therefore easily become outdated and fail to respond to an ever-changing political environment
2. Judicial tyranny
  1. Judges are not the best people to police the constitution because they are unelected and socially unrepresentative
  2. A codified constitution would be interpreted in a way that is not subject to public accountability
  3. It may also reflect the preferences and values of senior judges
3. Legalistic
  1. Codified constitution are legalistic documents, created by people at one point in time
  2. They are often dry and only properly understood by lawyers and judges
  3. Unwritten constitution, one the other hand, have been endorsed by history and so have an organic character
4. Political bias
  1. Constitution documents, including 'written' constitution, are set of values or principles in preference to others
  2. Codified constitutions can never be 'above' politics
  3. They may therefore precipitate more conflict than they resolve
5. Unnecessary
  1. Codified constitution may not be the most effective way of limiting government power
  2. Improving democracy or strenghthening checks and balances may be better ways of preventing over-mighty government, making a written constitution unnecessary
For
1. clear rules
  1. As key constitutional rules are collected together in a single document, they are more clearly defined than in an unwritten constitution
  2. This creates less confusion about the meaning of the constitutional rules and greater certainty that they can be enforced
2. limited government
  1. A codified constitution would cut government down to size.
  2. It would provide a solution to the problem of elective dictatorship by ending parliamentary sovereignty
  3. Higher law would also safeguard the constitution from interference by the government of the day
3. Neutral interpretation
  1. A codified constitution would be "policed" by senior judges
  2. This would ensure that the provisions of the constitution are properly upheld by other public bodies.
  3. also, as judges are 'above' politics, they would act as neutral and impartial constitutional arbiters
4. Protecting rights
  1. Indivial liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution because it would define it would define the relationship between rights.
  2. Rights would therefore be more clearly defined and they would be easier to enforce
5. Education and citizenship
  1. A written constitution has educational value, in that it highlights the central values and overall goals of the political system.
  2. This would strengthen citizenship by creating a clearer sense of political identity, which may be particularly important important in an increasingly multicultural society

Nächster

(7) A Codified Constitution for and against

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Marcus Danvers vor etwa 11 Jahre