A constitution and its significance
A constitution maps out the state's rules and frameworks, stipulating the powers of government agencies as well as the relationship between the government and other central authorities. Furthermore, constitutions list the liberty and privileges of its people, and in doing so, it develops rules as well as limits and obligations of the controlling or governing body of the country.
Parallels between the constitutions of the United States and the United Kingdom
The constitutions of the United States and the United Kingdom have many parallels. Based on their statutory similarity, both counties have the following characteristics: The United Kingdom and the United States constitution consist of the citizen's rights and also their freedom as well as the rules that guide both governments is enshrined in the constitution. The two counties' constitutions also recognize the head of state, un-upper house and the lower house of representatives. Moreover, the constitutions develop a democratic approach to governance where they give the citizens the power to vote in and also vote out the government. Additionally, they both provide each house with powered to audit another and limit their powers (Wiener & Rogers, 2012).
Differences between the United Kingdom and the United States constitutions
The major and most notable difference between the United Kingdom's constitution is that in the UK the constitution is documented in one single book while in the United States, the constitutions are unwritten. This means that the guidelines, as well as the rights and freedoms of the citizens, are based on historical judgments and other case files that build up over time (McCrudden, 2013).The other difference between the two counties' constitution is that the United States Constitution is easily and open to amendments, as compared to the American constitution. This is because the British constitution can be changed by a court ruling, EU law, or even an act of parliament. In America, the case is different since the constitution can only be amended if it gets two thirds (2/3) majority of the two houses, as well as the changes must be supported by three quarters (¾) of the county's population. On the other hand, the American constitution defines the role of the head of state and the government as one role assumed by the president while, in the United Kingdom, the same role is divided into two. As a result, there is the head of state and also the governing body that is the queen of Britain.
Merits of a written constitution
The written constitution can avoid doubtful situations of different interpretations of the law because of the provided retrenching ability, as opposed to the unwritten law, where there is no specific referencing in case of doubts. Unlike the unwritten constitution where it is based on historical events and case files, the written constitution emphasizes the rule of law. A written constitution avoids a scenario where the government or ruling institution practices arbitrary and whimsical actions based on the fact that changing the constitution takes a lot of time, mostly because of the protocols to follow. Additionally, the ability to reference the constitution also limits arbitrary and whimsical cases (Mason & Stephenson, 2015). Through the written constitution, there are equitable and well-distributed powers based on the three main federal units of the land. This is achieved since it is indispensable to federalism. A written constitution provides a framework to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen. Where the rights are essential in protecting liberty and rights as a measure of a written constitution. Depriving an individual of any of these rights will be unconstitutional.
Reference
Mason, A.T., and Stephenson, G., 2015. American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge.
Wiener, J.B., and Rogers, M.D., 2012. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of risk research, 5(4), pp.317-349.
McCrudden, C., 2013. Common Law of Human Rights?: Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights. Oxford journal of legal studies, 20(4), pp.499-532.
