essay mr thorley Flashcards
Amending Cons UK
The government, especially the Prime Minister, is too powerful. The House of Lords cannot veto laws and can only delay bills by a year. This could create an elected dictatorship. Gina Miller took the government to court over Brexit and proroguing of parliament. This is because parliament is sovereign- this means that they hold the ultimate authority in the UK. One could argue that parliament is too powerful and can amend or change any law by a simple majority. Unlike the USA, power has been devolved unequally meaning that power is asymmetrical. For example, there is a Scottish Parliament but Northern Ireland and Wales have an assembly.
Amending Cons USA
On the other hand, they are incredibly hard to amend making it hard to adapt to new societal needs and crises. A codified constitution often gives courts- U.S Supreme Court- significant power to interpret its meaning. This can create concern about unelected judges overreaching, as they essentially shape the law by interpreting the constitution. There have only been 27 amendments to the constitution, 10 of those were the Bill of Rights
Amending Pros UK
Having an uncodified constitution creates some ambiguity which is an advantage since the government can pass legislation very easily by an act of Parliament, allowing them to be pragmatic and solve problems as they come. An example is Covid.
Amending pros USA
A codified constitution allows the citizen to refer to the constitution to evaluate whether their government is transgressing their limits. It clearly sets out the distribution of power and the relationship between the executive, legislative and the judiciary. It also sets out state powers and federal powers. This is why gun restrictions and the death penalty vary from state to state.
Checks and Balances Cons UK
The Prime Minister, if supported by a majority in Parliament, Keir Starmer with 411 seats, can wield an enormous amount of power. This can create an elected dictatorship, as only a majority is needed to pass an act of Parliament. The lack of codification makes it difficult to enforce checks and balances, as much of the system relies on convention. The House of Lords is also weak as they cannot block laws, only delay them by a year. The unelected monarch has some prerogative powers like issuing passports and deploying the military and they are not subjected to much scrutiny. The whip also controls the party, not free and fair elections
Checks and balances Pros USA
By dividing power, it prevents any one branch from becoming too dominant and reduces the risk of authoritarian rule. By ensuring power is shared the system becomes more stable as sudden, sweeping changes are more difficult to implement without the consensus.Each branch can hold the others accountable, preventing the abuse of power. The Supreme Court ensures that laws made do not contravene the constitution. The president is limited as laws must be agreed by both houses. Elections every 2 years where the electorate can vote in new state representatives. President restricted to 8 years
Checks and balances USA Cons
If the president does not hold a majority in both houses, then legislation will be blocked. The system can lead to political stalemates, making it difficult to pass legislation. This creates a ‘lame duck’ president with little influence. This means the two main parties have to compromise-this rarely happens. This can also lead to judicial overreach where the Supreme Court and its 9 judges have too much power when it comes to interpreting laws and their decisions cannot be overturned, unless the constitution is changed. This creates concerns about unelected people having an excess of power.
Checks and Balances/Separation of powers Pros UK
Strong and stable government because they are elected on a party manifesto, which gives them a strong mandate.The UK system is built on parliamentary sovereignty, meaning that Parliament can make or repeal any law. The judiciary is independent and plays a key role interpreting laws and can rule against the government when it acts unlawfully, for example when Boris Johnson tried to prorogue parliament the Supreme Court stepped in. The devolution of power has introduced additional layers of checks, creating more accountability in decision-making.
Executive power/institutions Cons UK
This flexible nature of our constitution also makes it easier for power to be abused, this is also made worse by the fusion of the executive and legislative. Excess government power as they have a majority and the House of Lords is limited in its ability to block the Commons as it is unelected. The PM has prerogative powers- based on convention. The Head of State is a constitutional monarchy and has no political power.
Executive power/institutions Cons USA
There will often be disagreement between the executive and the houses. This can create a political stalemate. The president has powers to veto the house’s legislation and the houses can vote down the presidents. There are cases where the president loses support in the houses and becomes a ‘lame duck’ president.
Executive power/institutions pROS uk
Having an uncodified constitution means that the executive can change laws depending on how society and circumstances change, making the flexibility it provides convenient. They can act decisively and with a strong mandate-given by the people through an election.This also places power in the hands of the elected executive and legislative, who are accountable to the electorate making it more democratic.
Executive power/institutions Pros USA
This is a strength because unlike the UK, the USA explicitly outlines the powers of the executive and provides clear guidelines for the president’s authority. For example, a president can veto and sign bills but they cannot choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval. These checks and balances make it more difficult for power to be abused. Elections take place for houses every 2 years- the electorate gets to voice their opinions every 2 years.
Human Rights Cons: UK
Our HR can be changed easily by an act of parliament as parliament is sovereign and has a mandate. Our HR is not entrenched and has been reduced since we left the ECHR. For example, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that the UK would leave the ECHR, if sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would prevent the arrival of asylum seekers on boats . This shows how human rights could be eroded.
Human Rights Cons: USA
The rigid constitution can make it difficult to adapt to a new understanding of human rights. Abortion has now been overturned by the 9 unelected and remain there until they die or retire. This gives them excess power over the houses. Some constitutional rights like the Second Amendment are viewed by some as outdated and have provoked intense debate whether guns are needed in modern society.
Human Rights Pros:USA
The Bill of Rights provides a clear, written statement of the fundamental rights of its citizens. This means that individuals and governments know exactly what their rights are and how they are protected, this reduces the ambiguity of what constitutes a violation of these rights. The difficulty of amending the US constitution ensures that fundamental rights are not subject to frequent changes.
