The purpose of this assignment will be to analyse whether the UK needs a codified constitution. Also it will look in to the difference it will make for the UK to have a written constitution.
The formal definition of a constitution consists of the laws, rules for example conventions and other practices, which identify and explain the followings which are, the institutions of government; the nature, extent and distribution of powers and the forms and procedures and also the relationship between the institutions of government and the individual citizens, which is usually expressed in the terms of a ‘Bill of Rights’. A basic way to define the Bill of Rights 1698 is that it was an act that was made to focus on the constitutional situations and it was also made to handle certain civil rights. Having a written constitution will mean that every individuals rights will be under protection, which in other words will mean that they can have their say whenever they want and the state can not be take that away from them, whereas if the state has an unwritten constitution individuals could lose their rights if the state decides to take them from the individuals.
…show more content…
Lord Camden CJ added that “if this was law it would be found in our books, but no such law ever existed in this country”.
The sources constitutional law is mainly that the body of the UK’s constitution is unwritten. There are five main sources that are considered in the UK’s constitution these are firstly the common law, secondly Acts of Parliament, thirdly EU law, fourthly the European Convention on Human Rights and the final source is the law and custom of