Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution?
The UK currently has an uncodifed constitution, meaning that it has various sources, including statue law (law made by Parliament itself) common law (based on tradition, custom and precedent), conventions (a non-legal rule; a rule of conduct or behavior) and EU laws and treaties (such as the Treaty of Lisbon, 2009), whereas the US's codified constitution is enshrined in a single document - the differences between codified and uncodified constitutions are highlighted and explained on my previous post - which is pretty amazing and well written if i do say so myself.
Adopting a codified constitution is a lot more than just stapling all those different pieces of paper together and being all 'Woo! its codified now!' (well, you could do that. but good luck collecting all those documents) - but it has to be a lot more long and complex then that right? I mean, this is politics after all.
One pretty big influencing factor is the flexibility of our uncodifed constitution: of course, as it sources from tradition and conventions, it evolves and shapes around our current society and norms - it goes without saying, but what was the tradition and norms in Victorian England are, and without going into too much detail, are a lot more unhygienic then they are today (thank god for the invention of sewers).
The rigidness of the codified constitution is often argued that it is stuck in the past, as it has entrenched customs and traditions that may be considerably outdated today, and this is when the gun laws are often debated. Hundreds of years ago, 'the right to bear arms' continues and allows US citizens to own a gun. Back then, his let farmers, for example, protect their land and livestock, when laws were weak. Nowadays though, do people really need guns? Due to its rigidness, their constitution cannot evolve and flourish with the people, and with Americans being extremely patriotic and proud of their constitution, it would be near impossible to change, or even amend; but this doesn't stop Obama from trying to currently make firearms safer.
Although i just rugged that the codified constitution may be old and outdated, a some think that the uncodifed constitution itself is, well...old and outdated too. (Codified or not, some people just can't be pleased..)
By a simple google search, its clear most of the countries in the world have adopted a codified constitution- apart from a small few, including New Zealand, Israel and Saudi Arabia ( #TeamUncodified 4 lyfe) therefore, codified is more of the 'norm' in politics- but we shouldn't give into peer pressure!
However, uncodified constitutions are a lot weaker, due to the fact that they are more difficult to entrench. This means the government of the day could easily abolish any law, (considering that they're legitimate), and this could give the executive too much power, as there is no control on governmental power under an uncodified constitution. For example, in the US, there are significant checks and balances on the leaders power.
Nonetheless, if the government of the day is legitimate and they have been democratically elected by the people, surely they should have the right to rule, and the power to do whatever they want.
Overall, i think the UK should keep our uncodified constitution. It allows our society to grow, its flexible so can be easily altered in times of crisis (eg. following 9/11) and the people are pretty happy with how it is now- and it makes out country just that little bit weirder (not that our politicians are weird enough).
