Laws are arranged in an analytical form to prevent conflict or contradictions which superficially makes law stable and simple.Tags: 1500 Word Essay On The Importance Of Being On TimeCollege Essay IntrovertAdvantages Of Study In Group. EssayAn Essay Describing A HouseEssay A Beautiful Mind Paranoid SchizophreniaMaths Statistics Coursework GcseTelecommunications Phd Thesis
Constitutions can be codified or uncodified depending on the country.
For example United States and India have a written constitution, whereas United Kingdom, New Zealand, Israel has an uncodified constitution.
The on-going debate about the British Constitution that whether it should be codified or uncodfied has made people perplexed.
Currently, United Kingdom has an uncodified constitution; only parts of which are entrenched.
Change is very difficult or unlikely in a rigid constitution or written constitution.
It is difficult to alter any law to keep up with the fluctuations that transpire in society every day.On the negative side there is no person who can, make rules which supersede or derogate from an Act of Parliament (Dicey, 1959; 11).For instance, the Terrorism Act 2006 passed in the aftermath of the bombing in London, provided and extended the time of the terrorist suspects which could be held in jail without any trial for 14-28 days.Another definition which defines the constitution is ‘It is used to describe the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government’ (Wheare, 1966; 1).The British Constitution is often assessed from an historical perspective.Its antiquity and continuity are frequently emphasized.The prolonged existence of the constitution may be considered as cherished in its own right.Although in this situation government is trying to protect individuals from terror, but it does not justify encroaching unnecessarily on individual rights and freedom.Therefore, if the objective of passing a law is to safeguard individual rights and liberties and the avenue to achieve these objectives are the same that affect individual rights and liberties, then the question that should be asked here is-whether we have chosen the wrong means?As Dicey considers, parliamentary sovereignty has both positive and negative impact.On the positive side, it means that all Acts of Parliament, whatsoever, would be followed by courts.