UK Constitution

Question 1

What are the 3 U’s that refer to the UK constitution?

Answer 1

unentrenched (highly flexible + can be changed easily by an act of parliament), uncodified (not written down in a single doc therefore no laws have ‘higher status’) and unitary (legal sovereignty lies in one place, parliament)

Question 2

What are the twin pillars of the UK constitution?

Answer 2

parliamentary sovereignty + the rule of law

Question 3

What were 4 main labour aims during 1997-2010?

Answer 3

modernisation, decentralisation, democratisation, protection of rights

Question 4

Arguments for devolution to be extended to England

Answer 4

England is underrepped (relative), english nationalism has been marginalised and pushed aside, areas of England have strong national identities e.g. Cornwall

Question 5

Arguments against devolution to be extended to England

Answer 5

if England had its own parliament it would dominate (given its comparative size and wealth), what would be left for Westminster?, evel could be adapted further

Question 6

Debates for further reform to the HoL

Answer 6

HoL = fundamentally undemocratic, UK = elected dictatorship (majority in HoC usually can pass legislation w/o any effective checks)

Question 7

Debates against further reform to the HoL

Answer 7

membership based on merit not inheritance (number of hereditary peers dropped to 92), HoL played a key role in holding govt to account e.g. Brexit, could mirror US and gridlock

Question 8

Arguments for an entrenched + codified constitution

Answer 8

safeguards citizens rights (so they cannot be arbitrarily removed by govt), give clarity to what is/isn’t constitutional (e.g. BoJo proroguing parl), greater civic nationalism w/ greater understanding of our political system, const reform is asymmetrical and incomplete leaving stuff unanswered such as WLQ and devolution

Question 9

Arguments against an entrenched + codified constitution

Answer 9

no agreement on how a codified const would be created, no census on what it would contain, pragmatic approach has worked for years + uk has effectively adapted over time, codified const too hard to change (e.g. US const; DC vs Heller 2008)

Question 10

DC Vs Heller 2008

Answer 10

though removing the right to bear arms had a positive effect on the level of gun related crime in the DC area, it contested the 2nd A in the bill of rights which prohibits the possession of firearms - as the bill of rights is a codified source and viewed as ‘higher law’, it took precedence making the action unconstitutional