Make a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK (10)

A codified constitution is a constution written into one single document, whereas an uncodified constitution is a constitution written, or unwritten, in different sources such as conventions. In recent years, there have been many debates on whether the UK should adopt a codified constitution, or retain its uncodified constitution.

An argument in favour of a codified constitution includes:

P: The fact that 'producing such a document could...setting new clear limits on the power of the executive.'E: This illustrates that adopting a codified constitution would define 'the people's relationship to the state' and would limit the govt's power.E: This is a reason for adopting a codified constitution because the UK's current uncodified constitutions means that the govt has legal sovereignty, resulting in Britain being an 'elective dictatorship'.L: Therefore, if Britain was to adopt a codified constitution, the govt's power will be limited and will protect the people from being overruled by the state.

Adopting a codified constitution will also:

• P: Set out citizens' rights clearly: '... a codified constitution spelling out citizens' rights.' This suggests that a codified constitution will establish citizens' rights, as it will be entrenched making it harder to change the constitution.
• E: Currently, the UK has an uncodifed constitution, meaning it is flexible and could be changed very easily. As a result, British citizens 'struggle to put their finger on where their rights are.'
• E: This illustrates that people do not understand what their human rights are, to the full extent, because the uncodified constitution is not written in one single document, therefore the rules set out in the constitution are pulled in many directions.
• L: Adopting a codified constitution would set out the rules in one single document, clearly establishing people's rights, in Britain, which is the case in America as they have a codified constitution.