Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Having a constitution is the foundation for almost all nations in the world; a constitution in principle is a set of rules that establish the construction of the country and the way in which it operates.
In a world that is ever-changing, is having a written set of laws to be followed prevalent in modern society, or should have a codified constitution, or should we stick with the current precedent that has held up over almost 800 years? From the beginning when the Magna Carter was formed until even recently when the EU Human Rights Act was added& the uncodified Constitution is tried and trusted. The statement by Stanton and Prescott in their book Public Law means to show that should not adopt codification based on the idea that it can be easily adjusted through the current process. In comparison to other counties around the world, the constitution of Wales cannot be found in a singular document, instead, it has been made up through a variety of both legal and non-legal sources. When you look at countries such as the United States in which it is their founding document written in the 18th Century governs their entire basis of law and even though it has been done as such, there could be the argument that by doing so having a codified constitution does not always make the law clear.
The idea behind having an uncodified constitution is that there is no single document that explains how we are governed. Parliament and judges for example make rules which are binding and in effect Law throughout has been written in such a way that to have them down on a single piece of documentation would not be conducive to a productive and law-abiding society. and Wales is a common law jurisdiction which is quicker and more responsive than parliamentary law, the whole of the common law is judge-made and only by a judicial change in the law is common law kept relevant in a changing world, which is to say that with the fact that cases are indeed considered sources of law, judges have the ability to make a substantial influence over the development of the law that is dictated, however, they dont make or change the law, instead they just declare it.
There are benefits to having a codified constitution; one argument that could be had in favor of codifying the constitution is that it would collate all the rules into a singular set of documents, at the moment the absence of a written constitution mean that does not have a single, written document that has a higher legal status over other laws and rules. Because of this, the Constitution comprises a number of sources which makes it less accessible, transparent and intelligible.
Not having a codified constitution provides the flexibility to adapt and solve issues as they arrive, to amend the process we currently have in place in order to adapt to societal changes is probably easier, with an unwritten constitution it is the constitution which is subject to the government; the government can choose to alter it or interpret it in ways that suit itself. The fact that in being uncodified it would only require a simple majority of Government rather than if the constitution were to be codified where it would then require a supermajority in which it would require more than two-thirds of the votes required.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.