THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS

THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS

THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS

Introduction

A constitution sets out of laid out guidelines and structures of the state, stipulating the powers, of government institutions and also the relation between the government and other central authorities. Also, constitutions list the freedoms and rights of its citizens, and in doing so, it develops guideline and also limitations and responsibilities of the ruling or governing body of the land.

Similarities

The United States and the United Kingdom constitutions have a lot in common. Based on the constitutional similarities both counties share the following;

The United Kingdom and the United States constitution consist of the citizen’s rights and also their freedom as well as the rules that guide both governments is enshrined in the constitution. The two counties’ constitutions also recognize the head of state, un-upper house and the lower house of representatives. Moreover, the constitutions develop a democratic approach to governance where they give the citizens the power to vote in and also vote out the government. Additionally, they both provide each house with powered to audit another and limit their powers (Wiener & Rogers, 2012).

Differences

The major and most notable difference between the United Kingdome constitution is that in the UK the constitution is documented in one single book while in the United States the constitutions are unwritten. This means that the guideline, as well as the rights and freedoms of the citizens, are based on historical judgments and other case files that build up over time (McCrudden, 2013).

The other difference between the two counties constitution is that the United States Constitution is easily and open to amendments, as compared to the American constitution. This is because the British constitution can be changed by a court ruling, EU law or even an act of parliament. In America, the case is deferent since the constitution can only be amended if it gets two thirds (2/3) majority of the two houses, as well as the changes, must be supported by three quarter (¾) of the county’s population. On the other hand, the American constitution defines the role of the head of state and the government as one role assumed by the president while, in the United Kingdome, the same role is divided into two. As a result, there is the head of state and also the governing body that is the queen of Britain.

Merits of Written Constitution

The written constitution can avoid doubtful situations of deferent interpretation of the law, because of the provided retrenching ability, as opposed to the unwritten law, where there is no specific referencing in case of doubts. Unlike the unwritten constitution where it is based on historical events and case files, the written constitution emphasizes the rule of law. A written constitution avoids a scenario where the government of the ruling institution to practice arbitrary and whimsical, based on the fact that changing the constitution takes a lot of time mostly because of the protocols to follow. Additionally, the ability to reference the constitutions also limits arbitrary and whimsical cases (Mason & Stephenson, 2015). Through the written constitution there are equitable and well-distributed powers based on the three main federal units of the land. This is achieved since it is indispensable to federalism. A written constitution provides a framework to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen. Where the rights are essential in protecting the liberty and rights as a measure of a written constitution. Depriving an individual of any of these rights will be unconstitutional.

Reference

Mason, A.T., and Stephenson, G., 2015. American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge.

Wiener, J.B., and Rogers, M.D., 2012. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of risk research, 5(4), pp.317-349.

McCrudden, C., 2013. Common Law of Human Rights?: Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights. Oxford journal of legal studies, 20(4), pp.499-532.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!