The Magna Carta started the evolution of the constitutional landscape of the United Kingdom over 800 years ago. In the time since, King John signed the ‘The Great Charter’ the relationship between the state and the individual has developed, albeit in an uncodified manner. There has been no significant historical event to demand the need for a codified document of rights as that of the revolutions of France and America. Flexibility within the constitutional framework has both its advantages and disadvantages with respect to what a constitution seeks to achieve; The balance between the mechanisms and workings of state and the rights of the individual. The malleability of the Law making process and its effects on individual’s rights within …show more content…
In response to the public outcry over the Dunblaine massacre, Parliament almost immediately passed an amendment to the Firearms Act 1968 effectively banning almost all types of Firearms. The same cannot be said for America where despite a vast number of mass shootings, Presidents Clinton and Obama have failed to circumvent the majorities needed for a change in constitutional rights. Although there was not a constitutional right to arms within the UK it highlights Parliaments sovereignty to legislate as it pleases regardless of the effect of the new law. This is of distinction to that of America, where Presidential executive orders do not carry the same weight against the constitutional ‘right to bare arms’. The uncodified constitution and a sovereign Parliament does allow for dynamic change but this process can be as much a hindrance to the rights of an individual as an advantage. The Belmarsh case would be a clear example of this fact. The events of 9/11, just like that of the Dunblaine massacre, produced a fast response from Parliament in the form of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Labour Government at the time said this was necessary to combat a newly emerging form of Terrorism; Lord Hoffmann however,