Category: Constitution

The English word secular drives from the Latin word ‘saeculum’, meaning “the present age”, “this world” of change as opposed to the eternal “religious world.” It is defined as “the liberation of man from religious and metaphysical tutelage the turning of his attention away from other worlds and towards this one.”

Religion stands for the Spiritual values of life and for the relation of the human personality to the divine. Secularism is a principle that involve two basic propositions. The first is the Strict Separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religion and beliefs are equal before the laws.

The constitution of India provides individual and group freedom of religion according to Article 25, 26 and 30. The idea of the secular state was elaborated by Dr. BR Ambedkar. Basically, secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and for religious beliefs.

Historical Background

The term ‘Secularism’ was first used by the British writer Jacob Holyoake in the year 1851. He used this word (Secularism) to express his views about promoting the social order separate from religion without creating harm to the religious belief.

If we talk about the history of secularization or secularism, it originally meant the transfer of ecclesiastical3 property to civil or state ownership. Christian churches were huge landowners and religious institutions in non-Christian countries also held or controlled very large properties, which state increasingly secularized.

Secularization and secularism began in western Europe and it took rise of science and the scientific outlook, our many centuries. George Holyoake founded a secularist society that helped end religious discrimination in parliament and elsewhere.

Features of Secularism

• Equal respect and recognition for all religions by the state.
• No discrimination by the Sate on the basis of religion.
• Noninterference in the functionality of any religion by State.
• No official religion in India.
• An individual has the right to practice, propagate and profess any religion.
• It encourages moral and spiritual values.
• Encourages rational thinking.
• Rationalism implies the influence of ‘reason’ of conscience our all blind faith.
• Every secular man enquires into the cause and effect relationship associated with all ritual.
• Secularism has become a sub-process of modernization.
• Also, it has kept away the modern society from the influences of religious faiths, symbols and institutions.

Legislative Framework

One may even venture to such an extreme as to state that it is India alone which has kept alive the world’s enthusiasm for secularism, and to include that doubt about India’s secularism outside India isn’t obscure. Indian secularism as a core value to our Constitution was being addressed directly from when the Constituent Assembly was drafting India’s constitution. In the contemporary period, calls for returning to secularism have emerged not on the grounds that there is a sudden flood of conservative gatherings, both at the middle and in the states, but since secularism in India’s setting was being abused by ideological groups cutting crosswise over belief systems.

India is one of the most secular states as held by the provisions of Constitution in a nutshell. But, it’s a high time to understand via the roots of politic if it is for the real sense and manner if the word is used for or is it simply for the sake of position in the Preamble to simply show that our country is mere secular and the umbrella legislation book of our country. During the time of framing of our Constitution and after India got Independence in 1947, many freedom fighters and political members of our country, looking upon the rich taste and diversified nature of people all across the length and breadth of the country. The issues were created when the political aspects and perceptions of the people were mixed with the ongoing socio-economic problems and the blend got to a far off level of dismantling of the society and spread of hatred amongst the people of various religions economic problems and the blend got to a fear off level of dismantling of the society and spread of hatred amongst the people of various religions which puts on a question mark on the “secular” state remark and it’s extra-diluted phase, leading to pessimistic religious intolerance in the nation.

Reality from constitution speaks that Article 25, Right to freedom of religion for the propagation and practice of religion is the basic root for the religious easement. The further prohibition of the use of religious institutions for political purposes or the setting up of political organizations on a religious basis but, in the recent paradigm shift of the pressure of elections upcoming in 2019, the two parties opposing to each other that is, BJP and INC, are upon full-fledged energetic spirit to deal with the majority of seats followed by other political parties as in the TMC, DMK, BSP, AAP and a lot more. And this fight for the majority of the seats is the new traumatic phase for the public as the religion is a trump card along with the reservations amendment used recently and it has played with the emotional sentiments of the people as well as the new legislation passed is somewhat not complying with the rule of established law.4

People appear to suppose that underneath a profane state, there should be a standard law discovered by its voters all told matters as well as matters of their existence, their language, their culture, their personal laws. This can be not the proper thanks to inspect the profane state. In a very profane state, voter’s happiness to totally different communities should have the liberty to practice their own faith, observe their own lives and their personal laws ought to be applied to them. However, what the Constitutional Assembly debates do tell America, amidst all the contradictions and concessions, is however they created their own version of philosophical system in their quest to create a nation. While one will disagree on several things the founders same, what can’t be denied is that the spirit that drove discussion on one among the foremost important aspects of Indian democracy.5 The recent Supreme Court judgement on permitting girls of all age teams into the Sabarimala temple has brought out very sharp reactions from the two opposite camps, the fashionable liberal teams and also the orthodox Hindu traditionalists. The judgement has raised the question whether or not a non-secular belief that doesn’t violate the provisions of Article twenty-five will be adjudicated by the courts.

Constitutional Basis of Secularism

Article 15 of Indian constitution plainly documented that state won’t segregate among the citizens on the bottom of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them. It’s a fundamental right of every citizen to be treated equally below the steady gaze of law and state won’t incline toward the opposite on earlier on any five fouled ground revered below Article 15 of Indian constitution. The state won’t build up its very own faith and prejudices treatment is expressly precluded. This is often feature of secularism, the pundits of Indian secularism use to state that Indian secularism nevertheless it’s pseudo secularism. Article 14 of Indian constitution accommodates balance below the steady gaze of law and equivalent insurance of laws, it implies no matter laws are established by the parliament or any state council or another neighborhood or another skilled as characterized below Article 12 of Indian constitution. As indicated by this doctrine every individual ought to be treated equally and while not segregation. Equality is a necessary structure of the Indian constitution. Every resident should offer adequate chance and freedom in their separate life. Article 13 (1) expressly pronounced all laws that were there in power before the start of Indian constitution as void up to it’s in reliable with part III and a few alternative pieces of Indian constitution. This single proviso under Indian constitution smitten down each customary law that was in power at the season of starting of Indian constitution. Article 25 of Indian constitution is termed as a wellspring of secularism because it provides a chance to all or any people to execute, affirm and proliferate religion of their call. This is often a side of freedom still it is not total and it’s vulnerable to open request, moral quality, well-being and totally different arrangements of Part III of Indian constitution. Article 26, 27, 28 fully known with the thought character of the Indian constitution. Article 29 and 30 of the constitution are extraordinary arrangements below of the Indian constitution that secure the passion if non-secular and phonetic minorities in India. This is often a defensive umbrella to minorities to save lots of and secure their terribly own method of life and conventions. The 42nd Amendment may be a formal articulation of secularism it did not have something new but it an effect of inward awake to Indian constitution, by the higher than exchange obviously secularism is constitutional traditional for the constitution.

Landmark Judgements

In the landmark judgement of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India6 the court clearly pronounced that secularism is a piece of the essential structure.7 But the concern emerged in planning a definition. Ahmadi, J., expressed that secularism relies upon on the “standards of settlement and resilience”. At the end of the day, an embrace of a “soft secularism”. He would in popular concur with the widened definition received through the Court in Indra Sawhney8. The Court in Bommai ruled that religion and worldly exercise don’t blend. Opportunity and resistance of resistance of religion is just to the diploma of permitting quest for profound life that is now not the same as mainstream life. The closing falls in the space of the issues of the State. The Court moreover said that “the infringement of religion into mainstream exercises is carefully prohibited”.9 Ramaswamy, J., as he would see it proclaimed that the State has the duty to assurance secularism by way of law or a professional request. He clarified that projects or standards developed by using ideological agencies dependent on religion add up to perceiving faith as a piece of political administration which the Constitution explicitly prohibited.10

Aruna Roy vs. Union of India11 – In this landmark case related to secularism, the schools were imparting knowledge based on religion and created distinctions between minority and majority. Even though it was regarded as not allowed under Article 28, the state funded schools didn’t follow that which created the issues. The religious studies have to be uniform and there should be religious pluralism followed so as to respect various cultures across the country. So education shouldn’t be clubbed with religion and therefore, an Uniform Civil Code should be structured as per Article 44 of the Constitution. In regard to all areas and perspectives covered under the family law, the differences created between all religious enactments can be cleared by this. Unless and until the religious disparities are cleared, there can’t be peace around and secularism is just for a name shake.

Reference to Article 44

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution is by all accounts clear as it requires a uniform civil code, in this way broadcasting, one rule for all. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution is by all accounts clear because it needs a uniform civil code, during this manner broadcasting, one rule for all12 religion is wherever individuals use to pursue bound basic elements of religion; the state can keep itself off from such practices. Whereas overseeing the state it’ll not formally bolster a selected religion. The state should be unbiased within the preternatural problems with individuals. The opportunity of faith is ensured to every individual in most vote based mostly nations however such opportunity won’t conciliate problems within the public arena. Lawmaking body, executive and judiciary are organs of the state, it’s real want to structure these bodies whereas executing their sovereign capacities they’re going to not get pleasure from the problems of religion and profound problems with individuals. The individual is allowed to follow its opportunity but the state should stop itself from unfair improvement over the preternatural or non-secular conviction confidence and loves of individuals. The state won’t pass a law that precludes individual from active their chance of religion. The state has to be compelled to move toward turning into guard dog everything being equal and it’ll get pleasure from non-secular or preternatural matter of the individual. The fundamental standard of secularism is non-obstruction hypothesis within the non-secular issue.

Conclusion

So, taking it from the viewpoint of the issues whatever it started from the demolition of Babri Masjid and construction of Ram Mandir yet now, till the gender biased, religion based issues are onto the game of divide and rule the people of our nation which is the biggest trick used by the political parties. Hence, the elections 2019 are expected to cause a huge turbulence in the country and the war has started already for gaining support of people via the vote banks. Secularism therefore has turned into a dubious and cofounded subject in India’s talk. People should be aware in this high time that bread and butter in peace is a necessity and politics goes in vain unless and until it’s for the best cause to make a country safe to live in.

The Founding Fathers are the seminal example of the importance of compromise in politics. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the significance of political compromise appeared effervescent in the Ancient Greek’s attempts to create a functioning nation-state that fit the ideals of the State, Rome’s First Triumvirate, and the age of the Founding Fathers itself. In understanding the results that compromise could achieve from such historical examples, the founders firmly forever instilled the concept of compromise into the American political paradigm as evidenced by the later presidency of Abraham Lincoln as he built his presidency cabinet. Indeed, the Founding Fathers laid the foundation for the understanding that compromise in American politics was essential for the strength of the Union – an understanding that reverberates to this day. Thus, although the Founding Fathers were a group of revolutionaries possessing diverse personalities and conflicting ideologies, they all shared a common goal of creating a successful country and achieving American liberty: a goal that transcends time and space.

Aristotle takes a deep approach on how a government should be formed in his work Aristotle’s Politics. Aristotle goes from how a slave and master’s relationship should be formed and how that type of relationship benefits, to how a government is run with compromises. His first discussion is ruling and what is considered Just. Aristotle puts into play the idea that political rule is over the free and equal persons, meaning that there is no separation among the people they are viewed as the same. Therefore, the citizens share the responsibility of making decisions and holding offices. Indeed, Aristotle said as much when he wrote:

We must first adopt as a starting point that which is the natural point of departure for this inquiry. There are three possible systems of property: either all the citizens must own everything in common, or they must own nothing in common, or some things must be common property and others not. To have nothing in common is clearly impossible for the state is essentially a form of community, and to begin with there is bound to be a common locality: a single city occupies a single site, and the single city belongs to its citizens in common. (Aristotle 27)

As this demonstrates, Aristotle describes that diversity is needed in order to form the most ideal regimes. He states that the best polity is attained by a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. He then turns his attention towards partnership, which modern government is based on. Aristotle discusses that the best city needs the partnership of similar persons. In Aristotle’s Politics, there are different views from other ancient philosophers such as Socrates and Phaleas. Socrates says a city is made up of varying types of people. He believes that there is a need for equality, in which citizens are free and each has a share in the ruling. Therefore, his overweight idea is that a city requires a multitude of different people, which creates a basis for a need to compromise. Where on the other hand, Phaleas takes a somewhat similar approach. Phaleas believes that preventing conflict requires respectable and virtuous people, who do not wish for their own aggrandizement and pleasures. And so, from piecing together these three ancient philosophers it is clear that diversity within a city is absolutely necessary in order to obtain things like self-sufficiency, and diversity that provides for division and compromise. It requires for the group of men to be virtuous people whom the citizens have an abundance of respect for as well. When these things are paired together the bases of a good governing body are made.

As time passed on, the First Triumvirate arose. These men were the first political alliance to put the idea of compromise, which the philosophers had outlined, into play. One member of the alliance was Pompey, who was at heart a conservative, but was willing to work alongside the oligarchs of Rome, and was willing to take into account the notation of the government proposed by the senate. By setting aside his hubris and focusing strictly on the good of Rome, he made the alliance one of the most prestigious of its time. Cicero based his way of governing off the idea that all humans are divine and that they contain divinity so they have a reason. Cicero’s idea that justice is essential for the preservation of a society is what is exemplified in the ways, which he handles the conspiracy with others as they hold the trials for Catiline. Cicero also believed that there was nothing more important than the Republic adding in the trial transcript that:

Shame on the age and on its principles! The senate is aware of these things; the consul sees them; and yet this man lives. Lives! aye, he comes even into the senate. He takes part in the public deliberations; he is watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the Republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks.[Catiline 1.1]

This exemplifies this as he gives his oration at the trials as said before that the Republic’s interest always came first. This group was faced with a conflict that would require such compromises to understand how to handle it. This dispute was known as the Catiline Conspiracy. In the first conspiracy, Cicero addresses all these questions of everyone and asks them to Catiline. The men worked together although each had a varying view on the situation to strengthen the position of the leaders. This was capable of happening because Cicero believed that the basis of politics should be based on philosophy which is explained as said before by Aristotle. Following this alliance came the formation of the Second Great Triumvirate that was comprised of Mark Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian. Before this alliance, the three had spent years campaigning against each other all throughout Italy in various battles. Just before they had formed the triumvirate they had decided to come together to make plans to form the alliance. However, after Caesar’s death, the men had decided to unite together to focus on re-stabilize the Roman Republic after the catastrophe. Even though the men had interests in what would come out of this compromise for them, and their egos clashed continually, it did not stop these strong political figures from ruling not only among each other but in fact right beside each other. This trio would make a very unique alliance, they had a strong discord which had existed between them, but that was not going to stop them from uniting together to avenge the death of Caesar. Seeing this kind of compromise set everlasting precedence that would be seen in all the years following. From these two alliances it becomes clear that although the egos of people are very diverse and many are set in their ways, they show how it is a necessity to force those opposing views together and forget about the personal preferences so that those who saw them as the best political figures could create compromises that would be the most suitable to solve political issues.

When compromise is a key factor of making a sound government there are two prime examples that demonstrate that: The Magna Carta and the Constitution. The Magna Carta was made as a peace treaty to settle the different views of King John and Pope Innocent III. From their disputes, the Magna Carta was made, which allowed the absolute monarch to be removed and the power to be given to the people in the form of democracy. The signing of this document meant the beginning of ending the monarchy and getting a more ideal government, which the ancient philosophers had suggested before as they debated what an ideal government would look like during the Ancient Roman era. The Magna Carta is the first example in history where compromise of the people’s demands is seen, and how such varying views are able to be tied together to create a compromise, that would please the people and also benefit the city-state. Take, for example, the fact that King John agreed to make up for his previous mistakes. According to King John, “if anyone has been disseised or deprived by us, without the legal judgment of his peers,” he pleaded for a reason to understand why engaged in the policies he did, “we will immediately restore the same.’’[King John, Section 52]. The king agrees to make amends for the various types of past abuses of power. Some of these include returning lands, castles, liberties, and also the rights he had taken away without any kind of ‘lawful judgment.’ This reinforced the idea that even the king must abide by the law. Another statement made in the Magna Carta is that the king promised to be held accountable for all the things, which he had promised, showing that he was willing to set aside his hubris for the sake of ruling better. “Wherefore we – firmly charge – that all men in Our kingdom shall have – the aforesaid liberties – in all things and places forever,” King John said to his Peers. (King John, Section 63) At the end of the Magna Carta, the king restates to the people his commitments to all the rights granted to all the men in the preceding sections. He makes sure to specifically state that the agreement is for ‘all things and places forever.’ The barons would not allow the king to be able to go back to his old ways. They wanted the preceding generations to have these same rights and liberties as promised. From these things, it would later be seen and implemented by the Founding Fathers when creating the Constitution. The Constitution is made heavily based off of the ideas proposed in the Magna Carta and the concepts of Aristotle, which were proposed beforehand. The founding fathers took a similar approach as they all met with different ideas to form the best constitution. The Constitution was created essentially through compromise. In order to form the constitution, there were months and months of debates that had to occur. Delegates arrived at a number of compromises to settle very divisive issues including slavery. Some of the most well-divided compromises include the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Great Compromise, the Commerce Compromise, and the Slave Trade Compromise. The Great Compromise was the joining of two plans: the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. By combining them it set up an ideal congress that would remain even into the modern-day. The congress would be made of two components: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Next is the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was based on the argument of how the slave population should be accounted for. They came up with the idea that every five slaves would represent three white males. The Commerce Compromise was a restriction that only allowed for tariff taxes to be placed on foreign exports. It also stated that interstate commerce would be regulated by the federal government. Lastly, the Slave Trade Compromise was an agreement to hold off banning the slave trade in the United States until 1808. These extreme kinds of compromise set a standard of how later debates would be handled such as those of the debates and compromises are seen later in the Federalist papers.

As the Founding Fathers really had to test their compromising skills to run a country, two men did just that with their making of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton discussed in Federalist paper nine, what kind of government is most suitable. His conclusion on the Union is that there are no particular advantages of the Union before. Madison has a response to this in which he agrees and makes the claim that all liberties should be destroyed and that everyone needs to have the same interests. “A pure democracy,” James Madison proclaimed is “a society consisting of a small number of citizens.” To emphasize this, even more, Madison added that Americans “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.’’(Madison Essay 10) Indeed, as Madison would say, we are one and the same, referring directly back to the government of Athens in the fifth century BCE, this was when all citizens took direct part in the government. In the United States, a select group of men was chosen to do this instead. Another example of compromise amongst these two is seen in the Federalist paper fifty-eight and Federalist paper fifty-nine. Madison states in the Federalist paper fifty-eight that the Federal and State constitutions both provide for a gradual increase in representatives as populations increase. He also mentions how the Federal constitution divides Congress into two houses, a House of Representatives and the Senate. Within his essay, Madison makes the statement that “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the [people’s] immediate representatives.” (Madison Essay 58) Madison emphasizes the formidable power that such provisions would allow the people elected directly as representatives since revenue and taxation play such a vital role in the functioning of government. Hamilton responds by understanding that the State and Union shared powers between them. With both men seeing their views of what the government should be they are able to create a strong base to start a government. The last example is seen in Federalist Papers sixty-two and sixty-three with the concept of equality in compromise. Madison says that there should be an equal representation, which is good to build a government of compromise. Madison then makes it clear in Federalist paper sixty-three that diversity, just as decided by the ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, is a must to have a compatible government. It defines that the Senate provides wisdom and stability that creates a strong Senate that will have respect and confidence within the decisions they come up with.

Compromise does not come easy and especially when such large political figures are put into the situation of setting aside their strong views and coming together as one. The Great Triumvirate of America set a national prominence that would stand for decades. This trio would work together to solve a number of disputes that the country had faced, which was similar to the previous triumvirates that came before them. These men became known as the Great Triumvirate because like the ancient triumvirates, they also set aside the egos and learned to make compromises when it was needed so that they could run the country properly and most effectively. Clay had a very amiable personality, which was needed in order to keep relations civil. Calhoun had built up his reputation in the idea that he was an extremely intelligent individual, who was able to keep his private life separate so that he could focus only on the matters of the country. Webster was a prodigy that had argued hundreds of cases. His argumentative personality allowed for debates to occur between these three brilliant men to come up with the most suitable compromises. The men applied their considerable amounts of intellect and political skills, not only to their careers but also to the major political and constitutional dilemmas, starting with the War of 1812 and ending with the Compromise of 1850, which kept the nation from disunion. Clay starts with the belief of a small government, but after listening to the arguments of the other two men decides that supporting the federal power is not at all a bad idea if it helps preserve the union. Clay had claimed to have a strong dislike for slavery, but he engineered deals that bridged the gap between North and South and ended up helping to support the institution, also the Compromise of 1850, which kept slavery and allowed non-slaveholding states to hunt and return fugitive slaves. A slave owner himself, Clay, however, began to advocate for emancipation and colonization, which was opposed by the African Americans of the time. Calhoun transformed from a nationalist, who was all for the War of 1812, to a sectionalist and a leader of a pro-slavery movement. Overall, these men were able to put the intellectual minds together and set aside the beliefs to help run a country with success.

After tracing through history how the concept of compromise is necessary to run a country, the United States saw this first hand while Abraham Lincoln was president. Lincoln decided to fill his cabinet with varying men from former Whigs to former Democrats. Lincoln’s reason for such a strange approach is truly genius. Lincoln built his cabinet with enemies because those men were the strongest in the country and he needed the strongest men and their talents to run the country successfully. This concept feeds back into the idea that Phaleas expressed that compromise is found by virtuous people that do not wish for their own good. Lincoln also does this because he thought that a wide range of opinions, just as suggested by Aristotle, would allow for the conflicting viewpoints to stay together and that would lead to a significant amount of compromise. His belief was that by having these varying opinions that it would not only benefit him but also the country.

Compromise is the idea of settling varying viewpoints by creating agreements. This is key when trying to run a country. It is expressed from Aristotle through the ancient times to Lincoln that a country can not function without compromise. Indeed, this remains true to this day, especially with the modern-day government. For example, Obama’s Health Care Plan needed to be agreed upon by various people so that it could be put into play. It is also seen in the Trump Administration as those individuals working underneath or alongside Trump, who do not necessarily agree with such opinions and actions of him, must compromise in order to the governor a growing country to the best of their ability. Therefore, from the times of ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, and more, to modern-day politics, there is one thing remains clear that all the former political figures had set a precedent for, and that is that a government cannot function well and properly unless there are virtuous men, who are willing to set aside their egos and agree upon compromise.

Introduction

Federalism is explained by Elazar (1987) as a combination of ‘shared’ and ‘self’ rule whereby, the politics and people unite for common purposes while at the same time maintaining separate integrities of all parties. Federalism has varying meaning and applications in different contexts. There is no blueprint federalism, various types exist based on the purpose for their formation, degree of power distribution and region’s relative power and size.

Based on purpose of formation, federations could be coming together or holding together federations. Coming together federation occurs when independent states come together driven by different goals form a collaboration based on consent. Some examples of such federations are Switzerland and the USA. On the other hand, holding-together federations emerge from the need of a unitary states to deal with threats of secession by geographically concentrated marginalized factions or plurality of ethnicities. In such federations, although the central government maintains the upper hand, constituents are granted specific domains of. Depending on the degree of power of the constituents, federations can also be symmetrical or asymmetrical. Federations can hold varying models and can be diverse in their form but despite their differences, there are common characteristics.

Some of the common features that distinguish federal states from other political arrangements are constitutionally agreed contract, distribution or division of power, the participation of regions (constituent’ units) in federal decision making, accommodating diversity and fiscal autonomy as major features of federalism. The constitutionally agreed contract refers to the strong commitments and mutual consent both by constituents and the central state enter to achieve a common end while preserving their respective integrity. The division of power indicated here is different from those found in unitary systems with decentralized systems in scope of decentralization but also because of the guaranteed autonomy of constituents. It is also worth noting that although distribution of power anchored in cooperation is promoted between central and sub-units. Accordingly, holding-together federation will constitutionally grant higher degree of power and autonomy for constituent units while coming-together federation’s self-governance before forming the federation is respected and maintained. Duchacek (1987) argues the central government is clearly favored as an equal relationship will not allow anyone to prevail even the majority and it is simply anarchy, the United States and Switzerland Constitution could serve as examples.

Federalism like other forms of political arrangements has both its advantage and drawbacks. An apparent advantage of adopting a federal arrangement is its relevance addressing political issues that are prevalent in countries and its practical solution to real issues; it has been applauded for its function to maintain diversity and unity simultaneously. Proponents of federalism refer to three reasons: 1) efficient allocation of national resources, 2) fostering political participation and sense of the democratic community, 3) helps to protect basic liberties and freedom. MacPherson (1994) also identifies federalism as a means of power compromise, promoting tolerance and reconciliation of historical tensions and develops trust among society. Although any sort of political integration including federalism is difficult to implement in nations where longstanding domination of one group, it is the preferred arrangement in the context of where permanent differences in terms of culture, religion, ethnicity or otherwise exist.

However, despite its advantages, there are challenges associated with federal systems. One of the major challenges of federalism is related with stability. Ostrom (1973) argues that instability is an integral feature of federalism, as there is a complex relationship between the two levels of government. Bryce (1901) attributes instability towards the societal tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces. Moreover, some scholars indicate that rather than promoting diversity, it will reinforce the existing cleavages and incapable to address non-territorial societal cleavages.

The time, cost and efforts required to on decision making in federalized are much higher than unitary states due to overlapping structures and services. However, factors such as common heritage and application of federal principles effectively can contribute to success of federations.

Many Filipinos have been screaming and waiting for a change to happen. It is to have a much better, safer, and stabilized economy for us to live. One of the solutions that President Rodrigo Duterte presented is changing the country’s current form of government into a new constitution – a federal government. However, even though many countries have been known to become successful under this constitution, I don’t think it will be the same in our country, considering that the Philippines started as a unitary government. Instead of making our economy much stronger, it will only make things worse than it should be. I will present to you some of the disadvantages of a federal government that holds a great impact on our current state.

First of all, we can’t really expect that federalism will be successful given the fact that it is planned only within a short span of time. The United States of America took two hundred years to discover and learn its structure and mechanism before everything was put in the right place, as well as the countries such as Austria, Belgium, and Germany who happens to be known as the models of federalism. Additionally, putting up a federal government will cost a huge amount of funding.

There’s a huge possibility that poor provinces in the country will get poorer. Once the federal system has been carried out, the Philippines will be divided into 18 regional states. These states will acquire greater power than the national government when it comes to raising their own income and creating laws exclusively under their scope. However, not all regional states are capable of giving a huge contribution in terms of national economy. Based on the data released by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) as of April 2019, National Capital region (NCR) remains to have the largest share in the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) along with CALABARZON and Central Luzon. However, that is not the case on other provinces. Many regions are still lagging in much slower pace and are still left behind when it comes to economic growth. The thing about federalism, once our country is already under that constitution, the National Capital Region (NCR) will continue to rise, leaving the others who don’t have the capability to raise higher taxes on their own, thus, creating a larger gap with the other regions and an unequal development.

Even though states have the power to make decisions on their own and even implement laws and policies exclusive only for them where they need not have to rely on central government and get to decide on what’s best for them, the Philippines, as an archipelago, is already divided by geography, added the fact that we are also divided by different cultures, languages, and religion. That’s why, instead of building a better relationship, I do believe that federalism will only make the situations worse. Furthermore, we don’t expect that all Filipinos are willing to study the structure of federalism because there are still doubts whether those who belong to the lower class which happens to occupy majority of our country will participate in the issue.

The aim of this essay is to discuss and focus on professionalism and the importance of prioritising women in midwifery practice. The essay will demonstrate how a midwife’s behaviour contributes to the NHS to provide and deliver an exceptional service.

The National Health Service Constitution (NHS) was issued on 21st January 2009 by Lord Darzi. The NHS Constitution was developed so it can safeguard the NHS and continue to proceed in all principles, values, rights and responsibilities and make sure these strategies are always delivered by everyone, this is an important legal document for everyone to read and abide. The Constitution is updated every ten years, by everyone participating to build improvements. The main message of the Constitution is to make sure that everyone who uses the service or works in the service has the right attitude, behaviour and keeps the NHS’s reputation at high standards. The Constitution outlines precise and accurate information in a less complex way for people to read and understand. (GOV.UK, 2015)

The Constitution believes in high standards and staying on top form as an NHS employee. The third principle stated in the constitution “The NHS aspires to the highest standards of excellence and professionalism”, has been outlined because the principle must be followed and actioned every time (GOV.UK, 2015). In addition, upholding the principle in a professional manner is the key to success and builds one’s reputation in the workforce. Moreover, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC, 2018) code reflects this principle because the NMC believes in professionalism in practice that is required to gain revalidation. The Code states “uphold the reputation of your profession at all times”, this highlights a midwifes rules and regulations that must be delivered. The Author experienced, a shadowing opportunity at Hillingdon Hospital on January 2019 in an antenatal clinic. The Author observed the midwife’s communication with women and other healthcare experts. The midwife communicated and listened to women from different cultures, it was noticed there was language issues at times, the midwife listened to concerns and dealt with situations in a professional manner. The midwife asked for consent before undergoing all observations and showed respect and dignity in every aspect. The Author noticed the midwife educated women by providing information such as exercise and diets throughout the pregnancy. The Author witnessed the midwife’s behaviour was professional and ruled out various parts of section 20 of the Code. The midwife engaged in each women’s appointment and put women first and kept them all as priority.

Another principle the midwife’s follow is principle 4 “The NHS aspires to put patients at the heart of everything it does” (GOV.UK, 2015). The principle relates to the NMC Code “prioritising people” where both organisations aim to protect mother and baby, provide care and show compassion to improve their wellbeing. The NHS believes in keeping patients close to them by listening and discussing needs collectively. In the Authors experience she witnessed a baby being born 20th May 2010; the baby was taken to neonatal unit because of low sugar levels. The midwife listened to the mother and partner during that complex time and showed compassion. In addition, the mother was going through an emotional time such as personal problems and postnatal depression. Furthermore, the midwife was there for the family and the midwifes behaviour did not change if family members were demanding answers. The midwife communicated in politeness, prioritised time to discuss relevant concerns and helped mother gain confidence in holding and breastfeeding her baby. The midwife’s enthusiasm in this process was of quality and she always communicated with the multidisciplinary team for updates or if mother and partner needed to be reassured. The midwife had courage to tell the mother information and it was delivered appropriately in respect of confidentiality. The Author noticed the midwife showed commitment and discussed all matters, whether it was good news or bad news. In addition, the midwife went beyond, exceeded expectations and prioritised according to the NHS Constitution and NMC Code sections 1-5. The midwife was open and honest and built a trusting relationship with the family.

In midwifery practice all midwives should speak “openly and honestly” (Duty of Candour) when speaking to healthcare experts, women and partners. It is the midwife’s responsibility to give any necessary updated information to women in her care, when issues arise with treatment given, procedures or any other problems. Midwife’s should not keep women in suspense and communicate with professionalism.

In conclusion, the constitution has significant information set out for NHS workers or public users. It is vital for everyone to abide the constitution handbook every time a person uses the service. The United Kingdom is proud of the service because the NHS is highly respected throughout the world. The principles highlighted for professionalism and prioritising people are substantial for midwifery practice and helps midwives run a smooth practice with the right attitude. The focus is the wellbeing of everyone who walks through the doors and for midwives to provide the best service by executing and delivering excellent care, compassion, communication, courage, competence and commitment in midwifery practice. Midwives are the main contact for women in their care, their behaviour and professionalism must be delivered according to the Constitution and NMC Code. It is important that midwives speak openly and remain honest with everyone to build a reliable relationship, irrespective of the situation.

The evolution in the State of Texas began with the constitutions, though it never started with a strong impact like it is today. Seven constitutions made a real encounter with Texas. The first constitution was constructed in 1827. Texas was being joined with Coahuila as being only one state, while still being a part of the United Mexican States. Texas would persuade them later to have their own state while still being under the United Mexican States. Soon enough Texas and Mexico would have a big amount of pressure. Mexico would deny Texas’ request twice. To the community in Texas, it would show only one small request to be their own state and have a form of self-government. Mexico on the other hand showed that it was a sign of mutiny. It stated that the national government is to prohibit a small area with small communities, from being their own state. Shortly after Texas moved in with Coahuila to make one state, even after Texas requested to become its own state, and having its conflicts with Mexico. Soon after Mexico said yes and separated from Texas.

The second constitution is the 1836 Constitution. This constitution is to the Republic of Texas. They came up to the fall of the Alamo, and also Sam Houston’s amazing victory over at San Jacinto. This constitution was rather made faster only because of the Delegates. They would flee from Santa Anna and troops. This constitution was commonly chased or followed by a US model. With that happening this would later be creating a house of representatives, including a senate, and with a president. Having that being created limits were being put onto the president’s terms. For example, the president would not be allowed to succeed himself. To minimize any religious effects, this constitution took off clergy from the office. Slavery was approved, and the lead of each household would be given a substantial contribution to a land grant.

The 1845 Constitution was made after nearly a long-struggling decade. Texas reached an arrangement with the United States by the end of 1845. By this time Texas was no longer being independent, it needed a state constitution. A convention was later being placed in the summer of 1845 and both would approve annexation, and created a new governing testimony. With this new constitution, the legislature contained a house and a senate, to make laws, and also an executive branch managed by a governor. This banned any heads of the states to serve more than four years of either six years. It granted the governor the power to select any executive officials. For example, the attorney general, the secretary of state. The lieutenant governor was not part of it. The governor was able to be given the power to assign judges for the district court level and so on. Some limits were placed on the powers of the government. For example, state debt was critically not okay, and the legislature would be late scheduled to meet every so often in the year, slavery was also permitted. Fifteen years later after a lucrative attempt to be a part of the United States, Texas separated from the Union, and was a part of the Confederate States of America. Now being a part of a new nation, the state would have to have a new constitution. These new changes from the adaptation of the 1845 Constitution, they hardly would recognize the state’s place with the Confederacy. One foundation would, however, ban slaveholders from emancipating slaves without approval from the state government. After the Confederacy lost in the Civil War, Texas was sadly being told to move back into the Union. With that happening Texas had to write a new constitution in 1866. This constitution was also made to make slavery illegal. The 1845 Constitution was nothing different from this constitution.

The 1866 Constitution elected new executives. The new and written constitution was refused African Americans to vote, and newly released slaves were not allowed to hold in any office, and to testify in any court. Countless amounts of African Americans went through a process of passage called the Black Codes. With that being said this would demonstrate a lot of narrow job opportunities for African Americans, and for newly released slaves. The backlash this constitution and legislature created within the state, had many African Americans captured in oblivion between freedom and servitude.

The 1869 Constitution was a disaster. This made the US Congress strongly disagree with the Confederate States to keep all African Americans mistreated. This also created more distrust for the government. All Southern state governments were disbanded, and other former Confederacy branched out into five military districts. With that being a new constitution had approved African American suffrage to be reported in each state and to endorse it into the Fourteenth Amendment into the US Constitution. Republicans had then separated themselves into two factions, the Moderates, and the Radicals. The Radicals were more into supporting African American delegates and with their support also through immediate suffrage, than the Moderates. The Radicals wanted to abolish all the states’ actions during the period of revolution. The Moderates, on the other hand, were successful in some actions that directed a rebellion to be overthrown. Texas’ agreement with the United States would then allow the state to be split up into five states at any time.

The 1876 Constitution was mainly about how the Democrats controlling the government. This was Governor Richard Coke and the Democratic speaker of the house had thought that it might have been suitable to keep the 1869 Constitution. They made a document stating that as long as good people were in power. These leaders gave some minor rearrangements forcing the 1875 constitutional convention that would later contribute under Texas. The 1864 Constitution was made because of the Union so that Texas could be able to join back.

All these constitutions made a huge impact towards Texas. Each constitution was created to become a more advanced state. With that being each constitution has also made the government different every time a new one was made. Some conflicts and tensions that would inherit Texas would be the minimum wage increase. It would mostly be with the rich and the poor. The biggest poverty rate in the Union was 16% in Texas. Another tension or conflict would be men vs. women. In Texas schools, men and women have to take a sexual harassment class, followed by a few surveys and tests to help them prevent sexual harassment. This makes it discrimination. Another thing is educated versus uneducated. This is when one has a piece of better knowledge than the other. the difference is having their thought process, mentality and behavior with one another. Texas wants to extend equal treatment for both educated and uneducated. They want to prepare everyone for the future of the community and for the city to grow. Texas is a rural society when the constitution began. As time evolved and changed Texas is now an urban society.

Our Constitution today shows how much we have come, through the changes made by the constitutions. Texas, however, has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, the oil. Oil in the 1900s was good because it became a rich factor in Texas. Our traditionalistic culture, however, is one of our biggest weaknesses, because it has a more main focus on only the minorities and being sexes. However, Texas is always forefront with its national governments. For example, the Ninth and Tenth amendment. These two amendments are under the Constitution meant to protect the rights of all people against the federal government. The Ninth Amendment, however, protects and approves that people have some rights which are not clear-cut declared in the Constitution. Those rights, in particular, are not to be tampered with. With these amendments, it also shows that the community wants to be free or have power. They cannot scatter away from the Union. The implications of Texas were mainly because of the 1876 Constitution. It would get harder to make more and more policies. Because of that happening the public would speak out their opinions about it as well. For example, the LGBTIQ community. They won’t allow many people in that particular community to work anywhere. These people are going to struggle. With that being the community would need to push Democracy forward by appointing new laws for them. People in the community of Texas would join interest groups because of the benefits it had towards them. For example, it could either be for personal or non-personal reasons to join. Interest groups get revenue from the memberships that they have. With that being they also accept outside money. In the beginning, the Democratic Party was to only be established by Texas. After much reconstruction, the Democrats would later control state politics for nearly over 100 years. After that Democrats today are now trying to acknowledge themselves in the Texas politics.

Texas has not always been the best state in America. Throughout the years with many changes being made it has evolved into something greater. Despite the striking changes it has gone through, we can see that it transformed for the better.

Tyranny was used in ways the world cannot describe any longer. It means the power which one has to consequence another individual. The year was 1787, summer to be more exact. Twelve out of the thirteen states represented Philadelphia that afternoon. Fifty-five delegates in total. They were brought there to discuss the problem with The Articles of Confederation. Something showed that it needed to be changed. The problem was that there was no central government so no one could force any tax payments, and/or collect money. There was also no chief executive so the states were creating their own armed forces. Things were getting dangerous and there needed to be a way to fix this. That’s when the three main ways the Constitution protected itself against tyranny came into play. They were: Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Checks and balances.

The Checks and Balances are included within the Constitution to guard against tyranny. Document C suggests, “the three branches of state shouldn’t be thus far separated from having no constitutional control over each other” This quote is critical to mean the Constitution protects against tyranny because it creates three separate but equal branches. The three branches of the state are the branch, the chief branch, and thus the branch.

A second way that the Constitution protects against tyranny is Federalism. According to Document A, “Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control one another, and at the equivalent time that everyone is going to be controlled by themselves. The point is important to show the Constitution protects against tyranny because they care about the rights of the people and what they want for society. To elaborate on my thought I feel the quote is critical because it ensures that the constitution is against tyranny.

The last way that the Constitution protects against tyranny is the Separation of Powers. Document B, claims that “Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The James Madison quote shows the Constitution protects against tyranny because of separate and distinct powers of government/department.

Conclusion

Now you know how the constitution guarded against tyranny. In case you forgot the three ways that they have accomplished this are Federalism, Separation of Powers, and last but definitely not least, Checks and Balances. As residents of the United States, we should all know and love the Constitution. After all, it has saved our nation from tyranny and cruelty. We sure do owe James Madison a huge thank you.

The UK is one of the few countries among modern democracies that has no single, definitive written constitutional document. The reason for this lies in the history of the evolution and development of British society and government. Low (1904) highlighted the evolutionary nature of the constitution through his commentary that ‘ other constitutions have been built; that of England has been allowed to grow.. our constitution is based not on codified rules but tacit understandings.

Given the evolutionary nature of the constitution, in which Parliament is supreme, legislating as it wishes with no higher authority, it could be argued that there is little point in having a written constitution, as a reason to codify would be to limit the power of the legislature, necessitating the abandonment of the principle of supremacy due to incompatibility. Instead, the operation of government and the rights of citizens are set out in various sources.

One such source is constitutional conventions. Conventions refer to the nonlegal sources of constitutional behavior and political practices considered binding, however, Marshall and Moodie (1984) point out that they are not enforceable by any judicial body as they have no legal basis. Munro (1999) considers conventions to be the rules of political obligation, whilst Jennings (1959) describes them as the ‘ flesh that clothes the dry bones of the law’, filling the gaps in the UK constitution. As conventions are not enforceable legally, they are considered to be flexible, requiring no special measures or procedures for their creation, or for dispensing with if obsolete eg the appearance of the convention of seeking Parliamentary approval before taking military action in Iraq (Blair, 2003) and the disappearance of the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. Over remaining or leaving the EU during the 2016 referendum.

Despite lacking a legal basis, they play a crucial role in the operation of our constitution and are inextricably linked with the law. Examples of conventions include:

• The monarch plays no active role in matters of government. Any legal powers under the royal prerogative are exercised on her behalf by the elected government of the day.
• – The monarch acting on the advice of the Prime Minister will not refuse Royal Assent to a Bill passed in the House of Commons and House of Lords.
• The monarch will appoint as Prime Minister the person best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons.
• All government ministers should be members of the House of Lords or House of Commons. The prime minister and other senior government ministers should be members of the democratically elected House of Commons.
• Government ministers are responsible to Parliament for the proper running and administration of their departments and their personal conduct and there should be no conflict between public duties and private interests. Any breach of the convention should lead to resignation.
• There is a collective cabinet responsibility to Parliament for the actions of the government as a whole. Government must retain the confidence of the House of Commons and if defeated by a vote of no confidence must resign. The cabinet must present a united front in public support of government policy, therefore, must resign if they wish to speak out against the policy.
• The unelected House of Lords will not reject legislation that gives effect to important manifesto commitments of the democratically elected government under the Salisbury convention.
• The UK parliament will only legislate on matters devolved to the Scottish parliament (or other devolved nations’ equivalent) if it receipt consent to do so under the Sewell convention.
• Members of the judiciary do not play an active role in political life and ministers and MPs do not criticize in public individual members of the judiciary.

When constitutional conventions are breached, they may have serious political implications nationally and internationally. In the case of Madzimbamuto v Lardner Burke [1969], the white minority government of Southern Rhodesia issued a unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1965. Consequently, the UK parliament passed the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 declaring that it remained part of the UK dominion territories. The validity of the Act was challenged on the basis that there was an established convention that the UK parliament would not legislate for Rhodesia without the consent of their government. The Privy Council refused to enforce the convention, holding that Parliament could pass any legislation it wished including legislation that ran contrary to existing legislation. Lord Reid stated that ‘ their lordships in declaring the law are not concerned with conventions, they are only concerned with the legal powers of parliament.

In the case of AG v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976], the attorney general sought to obtain an injunction preventing the publication of a former MP’s book. As publication did not come under the official secrets act, the convention of collective cabinet responsibility was cited as grounds to prevent Publication as the book detailed dissent within the cabinet. It was held that it was no longer in the public interest to prevent publication as no issues of national security were involved. It was emphasized that the courts could have prevented publication in the public interest, thereby recognizing the convention of collective responsibility and other factors such as confidentiality.

These two cases demonstrate that whilst the courts recognize the existence of constitutional conventions, they are not prepared to enforce them directly, however, if they indirectly give rise to legal proceedings the court may enforce obligations. The Supreme Court reinforced that the courts cannot enforce conventions in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] emphasizing that conventions operate in the political sphere alone, adding a reference to the Sewell convention did not turn that convention into a legal rule, therefore, despite triggering Article 50which may breach the Sewell convention, there would be no legal remedy.

There are a number of reasons why constitutional conventions have developed and their purpose of them:

• to limit the wide legal powers of the monarch without causing constitutional upheaval. This is necessary it is unacceptable in a modern, democratic society for an unelected monarch to have wide powers.
• To enable the constitution and government to operate effectively and flexibly. This is of importance as political repercussions may occur as a result of a breach eg a constitutional crisis as a result of the monarch’s refusal to give Royal Assent for a Bill passed in the houses of commons and lords.
• There would be legislative deadlock if the monarch failed to appoint a prime minister who could command the confidence of the House of Commons and also deadlock if the government refused to resign in the event of a no-confidence vote.
• To ensure that the government is accountable to Parliament for its actions, preventing abuse of powers.
• To maintain the separation of powers between the different branches of the state, in order to facilitate the system of ‘checks and balances and preserve the independence of the judiciary.
• To supplement legal rules. Conventions interact with legal rules to enhance the operation of government.
• To help the constitution adapt to changing social, political, and economic circumstances. Eg 2016 EU referendum.

In conclusion, under the UK constitution, conventions play a crucial role by limiting the powers of the legislature, promoting the smooth functioning of democracy, and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. Consequently, Caroll’s (2013) statement that law and convention are very closely connected in a functional sense appears to be accurate.

Section A.

The ‘Brexit process surrounds the events of the UK leaving the European Union (EU), which we have been affiliated with since 1st January 1973. It has been a long and continuous process, that still hasn’t ended, despite the vote happening on the 23rd of June 2016, and the UK actually leaving the EU on the 31st of January 2020. Brexit has caused various constitutional disruptions, therefore there have been calls for the UK to adopt a codified constitution, like that of the United States (US).

A constitution is a set of rules which establish powers, duties, and various functions of institutions within the UK government. They regulate the relationship between and among the institutions, and most importantly, define the relationship between the state and the individual. To further divide this, we can split ‘constitution’ into ‘codified’ and ‘uncodified’.

A ‘codified’ constitution is a single document where key constitutional provisions, which are said to be entrenched, are stored, and otherwise known as a written constitution. The codified document itself is authoritative as it constitutes to ‘higher’ law, and it binds all political institutions and includes those that make ordinary law. As the constitution’s provisions are entrenched, this means that they are often difficult to amend or, when needed, abolished. A codified constitution sets out the duties, powers, and functions of government institutions. An example would be the US, they have the ‘Bill of Rights and ‘The Constitution of the United States.

On the other hand, an ‘uncodified’ constitution is found in various sources, and unlike codified constitutions, an uncodified constitution isn’t authoritative. Unlike the previous, uncodified constitutions are not entrenched, and can be changed through the normal processes for enacting statute law. Uncodified constitutions are not judicial, so in the absence of higher law, judges don’t have legal standards against which they can declare that the actions of other bodies are considered constitutional or unconstitutional.

There have been many supporting arguments for supporting the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution. However, if it were decided to be introduced, it would affect the power of the government, the relationship between the executive and parliament, the relationship between judges and politicians, and individual rights and freedoms.

One argument for a codified constitution would be that it makes rules clearer. The key rules for the constitution would be collected together in a single document and would be more clearly defined than in the current ‘unwritten’ constitution the UK has. Also changing to a codified constitution would create less confusion about the meaning of constitutional rules and enforceable with greater certainty.

Secondly, for a codified constitution there would be limited government and would cut the government down to size. A codified constitution would effectively end parliamentary sovereignty and possibly create an elective dictatorship. This is a constitutional imbalance and the checks and balances already in place would be used by the needs of governments upon the executive, to win elections. For the UK, it relies on the ability of a government to act in any way it wants as long as it remains in control of the House of Commons. It wouldn’t be possible for the government to interfere with the constitution due to the existence of higher law safeguarding the constitution.

A codified constitution would enable neutral interpretation and would be scrutinized by senior judges. It would ensure that the provisions of the constitution are upheld by other public bodies. Judges would act as neutral and impartial constitutional arbiters, therefore above politics.

A codified constitution could also be considered to have a greater educational value, as it highlights the central values and overall goals of the political system. It would strengthen citizenship as it creates a more vibrant political identity, which could increasingly become important as the UK grows to become more multicultural.

The strongest argument in favor of a codified constitution is that a codified constitution would protect rights. Individual liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution; it defines the relationship between the state and citizens. Furthermore, rights would be clearly defined and easier to enforce, than in the current uncodified system in the UK.

Contrary to the above, there are arguments against the idea of a codified constitution. One would be that a codified constitution is considered rigid as higher law is harder to change than statute law; it’s also faster to introduce an Act of Parliament, instead of amending the constitution.

Uncodified constitutions are flexible as they are unentrenched. It’s difficult of the constitution to remain relevant due to codified constitutions being rigid and inflexible. Codified constitutions cannot be changed easily, making it difficult to respond to constantly changing political and social circumstances. In the constantly changing, modern environment, it’s important for there to be flexibility; codified constitutions are rigid and therefore this would be considered to be a major downside to codified constitutions.

Secondly, another reason to be against a codified constitution is judicial tyranny and democratic rule in the UK. The UK’s unbroken democratic rule is often seen as a strength of the uncodified constitutional system. The supreme constitutional authority, for the UK codified constitution, is vested in the elected House of Commons, therefore changes to the constitution can be made via democratic pressure. For example, the powers of the House of Lords, under both Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, were decreased after a growing belief that an unelected second chamber shouldn’t have the right to block policies of the elected government during scrutiny. Under a codified constitution, judges would be the people policing the constitution, and judges are unelected, and socially unrepresentative which could lead to a democratic deficit, as of a lack in democratic legitimacy. Judges would interpret the codified constitution in a way that isn’t subject to public accountability and judges’ personal values and preferences, especially in senior judges, could be put forward.

To conclude, the UK shouldn’t adopt a codified constitution as the type is rigid and harder to change which is a major disadvantage, especially in today’s modern society that is constantly changing. However, supporters of codified constitutions have the opinion that it isn’t difficult to change, as essentially it is down to the interpretation of the laws. In the US, their codified constitution has been interpreted to fit in with modern society. Though there is this opinion, one remains that uncodified constitutions are more flexible and easier to change than codified ones.

Another point is that a codified constitution could lead to judicial tyranny; judges shouldn’t be able to police the constitution due to being unelected and not being socially representative. Meaning there is a lack of democratic legitimacy and ethnic minorities may not have their views or opinions considered reflected. This lack of legitimacy in democracy amongst judges would create a democratic deficit, meaning it would be unlikely for a codified constitution to be created as it acts as a limiting factor on government power. Codified constitutions stop elective dictatorships and parliamentary sovereignty, so it would be unlikely that government would want to end parliamentary sovereignty so openly when it has already faced scrutiny due to factors such as the EU. The UK leaving the EU created issues of ending parliamentary sovereignty, removing EU regulations, and changing the EU laws already within the UK constitution.

Section B.

The judicial review involves the judiciary (i.e., the courts and judges) scrutinizing anything within their jurisdictions. As per Lord Diplock in CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service, ‘judicial review is the means by which judicial control of executive action is exercised’. It allows people with a sufficient interest in a decisive action, taken by a public authority, to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of an enactment decision, action failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function. Challengeable decisions could be of local authorities, minister decisions, or those made by committees or panels. Judicial review doesn’t allow the courts to review the merits of actions done by a public authority. For example, they cannot decide whether the outcome of an action or inaction was good or bad and gave the needed outcome; they can only decide if the procedure taken to reach the outcome was lawful, fair, and rational. However, judicial review cannot be used to challenge the legality of an Act of Parliament as decided in R (Jackson) v Attorney General.

To bring a successful claim, Chloe, Richard and Dunja have to fulfill all of the procedural hurdles to bring a judicial review claim. The ‘procedural hurdles’ or ‘entry requirements for judicial review includes the claim being a matter of public law, not time-barred, is being brought against a ‘public authority, the applicant has locus standi, and there is no ouster clause that restricts the court’s jurisdiction to hear their claim. When a case is won, the following remedies may be possible: court orders (quashing, prohibiting, mandating), damages, injunctions, and any other suitable remedies.

Chloe’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth, aspires to attend a prestigious Art College after finishing her GCSEs. After many hurdles in the COVID-19 pandemic, Chloe is concerned that her daughter’s mentor teacher could be made redundant which could harm Elizabeth’s performance in her art exam to get into art college. Chloe emailed her local MP and the Secretary of State for Education, 2 days after the school breaks the news about the planned redundancies.

The first hurdle of this being a matter of public law could be satisfied as redundancies around the UK in schools could affect many students. Section 10 of the Lockdown Education Act 2021 (fictitious), states that ‘any challenge to the use of the powers in the act must be presented within 28 days of the use’. Therefore, Chloe’s actions of sending the email would be classed as applicable to the entry requirements. It is also being brought against a public authority, in this case, it would be the local MP she emailed and the Secretary of State for Education; this requirement is satisfied. The hurdle of locus standi (the right to bring an action or to appear in court) can be satisfied too. To have locus standi in relation to judicial review proceedings, under Section 31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981, the applicant must demonstrate they have sufficient interest in the subject matter of their raised issue. Therefore, this would be considered to only be in the interests of Chloe and Elizabeth, as there is no others stated to have supported this action. It would be here where Chloe would fail the entry requirements and would be unable to bring a judicial review claim.

Richard’s anti-lockdown protests make him very active on social media, and writes to all sitting cabinet members, stating that the government’s response to COVID-19 is an ‘affront to liberty. In one letter to the Secretary of State for Education, he stated that the Lockdown Education Act should be scrapped, and children shouldn’t be ‘locked out’ of school because ‘people are afraid of the sniffles’.

Firstly, this is a matter of public law, and isn’t time-barred due to the constant social media activities he is conducting, and the writing of many letters of concern to all sitting cabinet members. Richard has brought his concerns to every local authority available, therefore the third procedural requirement for judicial review has been satisfied. Regarding locus standi, Richard, with a social media following of individuals supporting his theories and ideas, can complete this entry requirement. The next requirement is for there not to be an ouster clause that restricts the court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim; this includes any provision from the European Communities Act 1972, Northern Ireland Protocol Provisions, European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and any other legislation or convention. Essentially, ouster clauses are inserted into pieces of legislation that attempt to exempt certain act and decisions of the executive from being susceptible to judicial review. The ouster clause procedural hurdle, as there could be no reason why this can’t be put into the courts as it is a matter of public interest, as it enables the courts to evaluate the way the government has acted. Therefore, all of the entry requirements have been fulfilled.

A possible remedy for Richard could be a quashing order, made by the court, which nullifies the successfully challenged, making it as if the original decision never happened.

One substantive ground of judicial review that could be applied for Richard is ‘illegality’ under the subsection of ‘relevancy’. When making decisions and exercising their powers, public authorities must consider all relevant issues and considerations. If a public authority fails to consider all relevant issues before using power or deciding, then its actions may be unlawful, and the court will find illegality has occurred. An example of this would be R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables, where it discussed the Criminal Justice Act 1991 powers that the Home Secretary has when deciding the minimum sentence for minors sentenced to severe jail terms. As a result, the House of Lords held that the Home Secretary’s use of power was unlawful, as it had been driven by irrelevant considerations, such as public opinion.

Dunja is a headmistress of a private boarding school for boys, is also Chair of the UK Secondary Education Pedagogy Society, an interest group that meets to share research and approach the education of teenagers. Dunja heard about the letter from the Secretary of state from a friend, sharing the concern that any reduction in the accessibility of arts and crafts could be detrimental to teens’ educationmental wellbeing.

This is a matter of public law and is within the required 28 days. Dunja’s friend brought the issue, by letter to the public authority, who in this instance was the Secretary of state. As Dunja is the headmistress and is chair of the above-stated society, locus standi can be fulfilled, as there is sufficient interest in the issue from both teachers, pupils of the school, and members of the Secondary Education Pedagogy. There would be no ouster clause that would restrict the court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim.

A possible remedy for Dunja’s judicial review issue would be a mandating order, which is where the court makes an order specifying how a public order should rectify the situation.

The parliamentary sovereigns it holds the legislative body and have absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions including the executive and judicial bodies. The politician makes and break their own rules in a system of parliament supremacy. Parliamentary sovereignty mean that parliament has, under English constitution, the right to make or unmake any laws however and further that no person or body is recognised by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament.

The constitution provides protection of basic rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech .It is a selection of the most important rules about the government of the country. The constitution supremacy means that no laws or action can violate a nation’s constitution and check on government power no matter who is elected, the constitutional principles must be enforced. This prevents a wide range of potential government abuses.

The difference between the parliamentary sovereigns and the constitution supremacy, the parliamentary sovereigns as it relates to parliamentary supremacy the rule of the constitution is not written, codified it does exist in a documentary form. Â what is written are the principle source of the constitution which are of parliament and laws as are the principles of common law.

The advantages of parliamentary sovereignty

they can easily make amendments and make laws without needing to seek a special majority, they can pass laws without submitting them for public viewing and they can restrict citizens from doing things they consider wrong, inappropriate and harmful even if it infringes on their basic human rights.

Parliamentary representative making the system very democratic.

General election every 5 years so can be voted out if not performing as promised

Statutes can reform the whole area of law in one act such as, merging criminal law with fraud act 2006. These abolished old offenses of deception and fraud, created a new simpler structure of offenses.

Statutes set broad policies that give power to others to make delegated legislation. The general structure laid down by parliament can be made in greater detail rather than just being contained in simple statute.

Before bills are presented consultations are made about proposed changes so the government can take objections into consideration. bills also go through stringent lengthy processes in parliament so all the clauses and amendments are thoroughly discussed.

Law by parliament is certain as it cannot be challenged under doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.

Advantages of constitutional supremacy

The constitutional laws bind all the citizens and government officials, there is an option to elect new officials, sign petition of a change

There is a concentrated effort to rule from a perspective of centrism

It provides an opportunity to refresh the government periodically

There is an opportunity to offer governing continuity

This structure can help to unified the nation

Separation of power

The constitution is based on the principle of the separation of power. It means that the power of the state is divided between the three different but interdependent components or arms, namely the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. This separation prevents a situation where one person body has an excessive amount of power. It provide a system of checks and balances. The whole principle offers us a system of checks and balances, where the different branches of government are accountable to one another.

The Executive

The president is the head of the state and the national executive. He exercises executive authority together with another member of cabinet, namely the Deputy president and minister. The executive develops policy for example by preparing and initiating legislation which submits to parliament for approval. It that implements the policy by running the administration of the different government department. The executive must account for its actions and policies to parliament. The cabinet is accountable collectively and individually to parliament to exercise executive authority and perform their functions. Further, members of the cabinet must provide parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control.

Examples of Executive power

The executive power it include the authority held by the president, vice president and the president’s cabinet. The ability to appoint individual to certain government post. Is the authority to grant a pardon, or forgiveness. This power extends only to federal crimes, however the president has no authority to pardon state crimes.

The Legislature

The national legislature of parliament consist of two house the National Assembly and National Council of provinces whose member are elected by the people of South Africa. Each house has its own distinct function and powers as set out in the constitution. The National Assembly is responsible for choosing the president, passing laws ensuring that the member of the executive perform their work properly and providing a forum where the representatives of the people can publicly debate issues. The National Council of provinces is also involved in the law-making and provides a forum for debate on issues affecting the provinces. Its main focus is ensuring that provincial interest are taken in to account in then national sphere of government. In specific case, local government representatives also participate in debates in the Nation Council of provinces. Parliament as the national legislature, has legislative authority in the national sphere of government. Consequently parliament has the power to pass new laws, to amend existing laws and the repeal old laws. The same power is exercised by provincial legislature in the provincial sphere of government in respect of provincial laws, and by municipal council in the local sphere of government in respect of municipal by laws.

Examples of Legislature

• National level
• Provincial level
• Local level

The Judiciary

The head of the constitution courts is also chief justice of South Africa. The constitution state that the courts must be independent and act impartially. Organs of state such as parliament and the executive must assist and protect the courts in order to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity accessibility and effectiveness.

The Judicial Service Commission was first established by the 1993 constitution in an attempt to broaden the responsibility for the administration of justice, and enhance the independence of the courts from interference by the other branches of government. The commission is widely representative of all stakeholders in judicial matters and advises the government on a variety of judicial matters set out in the constitution in particular the appointment and dismissal of judges and any other matter relating to the judiciary and the administration of justice. The  judicial function is the function of the courts as impartial refers to resolve legal disputes by determining which rule of law applies and what it by applying it in an authoritative way to the fact of particular legal dispute.

Examples of Judiciary

The judiciary is made up of the courts, such as the Constitutional court, the Supreme court of appeal, High courts, magistrate court.

Public Law is divided into Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Criminal Law. All three of these fields of law have a direct impact on the public interest.

Constitutional Law can be defined as the body of legal rules that come from the Constitution. Â Constitutional Law includes the following: