Codified or Uncodified Constitution?

[Father Jack]

Which form of constitution do you think is better for a country to adopt, a codified constitution or an uncodified constitution?

An example of a codified constitution would be the US constitution. Being codified means that it is written down and it is usually a clear set of rights etc.

An example of an uncodified constitution would be the British constitution. It is not written down but it is instead an amalgamation of statute law, common law, convention and (I think) Royal perogative.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Codified. The only problem is you can only really practically change to a codified constitution if your country is new or undergoes a massive revolution of some sort. I think codified is better... loosely, though I rail against the American mythology that the constitution is sacrosanct yet at once a football... but all that said under no circumstances would I want to change the UK constitution to codified... but we have the benefit of a thousand of years of development.

[Каие]

Codified. The only problem is you can only really practically change to a codified constitution if your country is new or undergoes a massive revolution of some sort. I think codified is better... loosely, though I rail against the American mythology that the constitution is sacrosanct yet at once a football... but all that said under no circumstances would I want to change the UK constitution to codified... but we have the benefit of a thousand of years of development.

Agreed it would just be a great trouble and mess to write ours down.

[Viking Prince]

The advantage to a codified constitution is the same as you or I having a written contract over an oral agreement.

[Father Jack]

The advantage to a codified constitution is the same as you or I having a written contract over an oral agreement.

Except that uncodified constitutions are written down but not on one clear sheet of paper/document but rather in laws.

The thing that I like about uncodified constitutions is that they are very flexible and they can be changed quickly and easily to reflect the the moods and culture of the present. However that can be a weakness if the government gets too powerful. As ferrets mentioned Britain does have the advantage of 1000 years of development and the English Civil War to produce a working uncodified constitution so its certainly not the constitution of choice if you want to set up a basic set of rights and rules of governance quickly.

[Viking Prince]

Except that uncodified constitutions are written down but not on one clear sheet of paper/document but rather in laws.

The thing that I like about uncodified constitutions is that they are very flexible and they can be changed quickly and easily to reflect the the moods and culture of the present. However that can be a weakness if the government gets too powerful. As ferrets mentioned Britain does have the advantage of 1000 years of development and the English Civil War to produce a working uncodified constitution so its certainly not the constitution of choice if you want to set up a basic set of rights and rules of governance quickly.

Not every bit of legislation should be treated equal to a constitution. The constitution is supposed to be a central set of ideals to be followed when creating and implementing government policy and legislarion.

I will grant you, a very long history can be of benefit -- it can also create many conflicts in what is and is not constitutional. The USA set up it's constitution with the same legacy as the English in 1789, but thought it better to clearly state the limitation on the federal government and to clearly state the federal responsibilities. The limitations is what is not in the uncodifed versions. Not have done something is not really the same as limited from doing so.

The UK is also much more centralized in governance. Probably due to the geographic size of the state -- maybe another reason for the US codification. Not to mention the soverneign states that formed the USA voluntarily versus the UK's history.

I think this is still the best way, but whatever seems to work is OK with me.

[Каие]

As Ferrets said its easier for new countries or ones coming out of a revolution to write up a new constitution but much harder to change an unwritten one and formulate it into one written document.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

both have strengths and flaws, but if forced, I'd push for codified, we may have 1000 years of development, but so does Morris dancing and that's .

[Каие]

both have strengths and flaws, but if forced, I'd push for codified, we may have 1000 years of development, but so does Morris dancing and that's .

My history teacher would behead you for that comment

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

My history teacher would behead you for that comment

If he is a morris dancer then the beheading should be the other way round, its in the national interest.

[Каие]

If he is a morris dancer then the beheading should be the other way round, its in the national interest.

Its a part of English culture.

[Calamari]

Would murder count as uncodified? AFAIK theres no Murder Act of 1674 lol.

[attilavolciak07]

Always write in pencils they say

[Demokritos]

An example of an uncodifed constitution would be the British constitution. It is not written down but it is instead an amalgamation of statute law, common law, convention and (I think) Royal perogative.

I'm not familiar with the British constitution or any uncodified constitution. But statute law, common law and the royal prerogative are in some way or other codified parts of the British constitution, aren't they, so the British constitution can't be said to be fully uncodified. Now, conventions can be written agreements or uncodified rules (of behaviour), but the latter can also be written down and many (codified) laws in fact started as conventions of this latter sort. Can you give me a couple of examples of (unwritten) conventions that are part of the British constitution?

[MaximiIian]

Codified, I think, is best. In the long run.
It specifies what the government can and cannot do, rather than leave it to a broad array of written and unwritten rules that lack a coherent structure. Uncodified ones, while workable- as Britain shows, are confusing for the average voter to take in and understand.

EDIT: Just because it's written doesn't necessarily mean it is codified. Codification implies a single coherent, concise document listing the various laws or rules within that code. Simply having a variety of unorganized written legislation does not a codified constitution make.

[Demokritos]

Just because it's written doesn't necessarily mean it is codified.

Of course. A complex whole of thoughts is codified if it's divided into its different individual parts and each part named or numbered in a systematic way (to reflect its relation to every other part, faciliate search for a particular idea etc), and it usually helps to do this in writing.

But Mackios seems to say that there are parts of the British constitution that are not even written down. I'm curious to hear if this is true. I mean, if it's not even written down, how do we know that it's part of the constitution?

[MaximiIian]

Well, certain conventions are there, but I wouldn't think of them as part of the British constitution.
Like the Monarch not exercising much of their powers; conventional, but not codified or written down as law. If they did exercise more of their legal powers, I think that'd be more of a socio-political crisis in general rather than the "constitutional crisis" that many think it would be.

[Justice and Mercy]

Codified.

True, can't do much to prevent a revolution if the majority is against the codified constitution. Oh well. Principle would demand that the government hold it's ground, even if it's futile.

[wilting]

Well, uncodified can be more flexible, but that can be both a good and bad thing.

Codified is a lot simpler and clearer, better for democratic transparency, one would think. (Or at least it should be - the ridiculous Lisbon and Constitutional Treaties spring to mind; they rather missed the point of codification, the former especially. And yes, by this I am implying that EU law is constitutionalised regardless of those documents.)

As a Federalist, (as oppossed to a Functionalist*) I'd have to say codified.

*I wonder how many people know what that is?

Well, certain conventions are there, but I wouldn't think of them as part of the British constitution.

Indeed, this isn't a characteristic of a codified or uncodified constitution. It occurs in all systems, and law is malleable to a degree dependent on interpretation. The Irish President, for example, is more powerful on paper than she* is in practice. (This was, incidentally, a source of argument between a number of my lecturers on whether or not Ireland is a semi-presidential democracy.)

*It's always been a she in my memory. Hell, its' always been a Mary in my memory.

[MaximiIian]

Yeah. It's like in my PoliSci 101 class (American Government on the national level), we're studying the US government in terms of systems analysis. Viewing the government as a system with formal and informal rules, inputs, and outputs; and as my professor keeps stressing, in any system, the informal, unwritten rules are far more important than the formal rules, because it's the informal ones that determine what actually happens.

Another example of that is, like, here in Louisville-Metro, there's a municipal law that states that, if you're selling your home, you have to be certified that your home has working smoke detectors. That law has never once been enforced. People sell their homes all the time without checking. It's ridiculous. So, while formally, a home must be certified for working smoke detectors...informally, it's not observed.