Comparing the US and UK constitutions Flashcards
Structural comparison of codified vs uncodified
The US has a codified constitution which means that its written down where as in the uk its the opposite.
The uk’s constitution can be changed via an act of parliament eg the european union withdrawal act 2018 which made the uk leave the eu the biggest change through merely an act. The us on the other hand needs a super majority in both houses and 2/3 of the states need to be onboard, this can lead to under representation as if all the big states don’t want it but smaller states do mean overall its less representative. The last amendment was 1992 - the 27th which reduced congress corruption.
Structural comparison of power of the executive
As in the UK, parliament is sovereign they can easily pass any laws as they are the most powerful body in the land. In the US they have the supreme court to scrutinise the executive. This means the PM can control the legislator more than the president due to checks and balances.
The last UK law to be declared “Unconstitutional” was when Johnson tried to prorogue parliament to get his brexit deal through. THis is a very rare occasion. This is as if the Judiciary says that its unconstitutional the government can pass a law making it legal.
In the US judicial review is used a lot and the supreme court has a lot of power. This is most evident in the US vs Nixon where he would be forced to hand tapes over to show watergate, this led to his resignation. Congress also have a lot of power besides the president so if congress does not want the presidents legislature they don’t have to. This is currently happening to Biden’s infrastructure bill.
Structural comparison of the composition of the 2 houses (IDK how to put it)
The direct election of both chambers and the president in the US can lead to gridlock in a way that is unusual in the UK due to the way in which the executive can (usually) dominate the legislature.
In the US the house are determined by midterms which means its rare after midterms to be control of both houses. At the end of Obama’s presidency it turned him into a Lame Duck president and he had little to no power with neither of the houses. In the UK if the lords is controlled by whoever it doesn’t matter as they cant veto only block. THey sometimes end up having parliamentary ping pong but it is rare.
Rational comparison on checks and balances
The constitutional restraints placed on the US president mean that he often he has to rely on informal methods to exert authority such as the ‘power to persuade’ and the ‘bully pulpit’. This is not usually necessary for the PM.
Because of the high levels of checks and balances in the US the president has to use backhanded ways to get power, this is by using implied and inherent powers. Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) fireside chats were used to set agenda as congress wouldn’t allow him. In the UK there is no such need as the PM is the most power with the only checks and ballances being PMQS and votes of no confidences.
Rational comparison on judges
US Supreme Court judges are far more politicised than in the UK. They are labelled liberal or conservative and are high profile. There are no such labels in the UK.
In the US judges are very politicised as they are appoint to follow a presidents view. Trump appointed 3 judges that were all conservative and anti-abortion. Appointments are a major thing and will fill up the news, this happened with Amy coney Barret. This is partly due to the judiciary in america acting as a Quasi-legislative.
In the UK judges are independent and appointed through the judicial appointment committee (JAC). This means the judges wont be posed to help a certain party.
Rational comparison of a “mandate”
The US constitution gives the president a direct mandate from voters. In the UK, the PM has to rely far more on the support of her party and MPs. The PM’s mandate is indirect and relies on Parliamentary support.
In the US the voters vote for the president not the party whereas in the Uk the voters vote for the party not the PM. This means in the UK, Pm’s elected via vote of no confidences have no mandate. At the Moment sunak is trying to use that he was a cabinet minister when Johnson was elected to try and make himself one.
Cultural comparison of codification of the constitution
The codification of the constitution and the entrenched rights and powers of the branches of government and bill of Rights reflect the wishes of the Founding Fathers to limit power and protect rights of individuals. This is not the case in the UK where the constitution has evolved over time and is
uncodified.
This is so in the US their values are kept overtime to stop one strong hitler. This method is good as there has only been 17 amendments since the bill of rights. This means sudden radical changes don’t happen as well.
In the Uk the constitution can be changed by a single act. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created the supreme court just by one bill.
