One aspect that both constitutions are similar is that both England and the United States have laws in place that individuals are obliged to observe. People are aware of the expectations and the penalties of breaking the law. People are held in check when rules are in place because the laws clearly define what is and is not expected. Laws are made to protect people from damage, but they are also made to let the public know that there are laws in place to keep them safe and to prevent them from doing wrong and others from doing wrong to them. Constitutions guarantee that everyone understands the required level of behavior. If we did not follow the laws, our society would be different, which could lead to significant ruin and instability in the country. Both England and the United States have persons in charge; for example, England has a Parliament led by the Prime Minister, and the United States has a president. They ensure that those who breach the law are punished, which should inspire individuals to think twice before committing a crime and breaking the regulations.
One distinction between the British and American constitutions is that the acts in the British constitution are not written, which means that amending a statute is not a complex process. When laws are not written down, they are easy to change. However, before any law is altered in America, the two point rules must be followed, and laws are more difficult to reform. This is because laws in America are deemed concrete since they are difficult to change.
The difference with the United Kingdom is that they do not have a written constitution, nor have they laid out their laws in writing. The British Constitution is contained in Parliament, and it is here that laws are enacted; the Prime Minister will collaborate closely with Parliament members. Furthermore, Parliament has the right to amend or set aside judicial decisions with ease, and with hindsight, this allows us to realize that common law has now been established, although some of the other acts are not. I utilized the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City (2002), in which a list of statutes that were thought to be constitutional examples was presented. Among these were the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Human Rights Act of 1998, and a few others. Despite the lack of a document, Britain still has a constitution, and citizens are obligated to respect the acts as they have been correctly stated. Most acts have also been around for a long time, so people are expected to be aware of them and to conduct study if possible. A quotation from Ivor Jennings’ ‘The Law and the Constitution (1959) stated that he believed no one would be aware of the British Constitution if it were described as a document that was written down, comparable to what America had. The major reason I quoted Ivor is because he emphasized the fact that the British Constitution exists, despite the fact that no documents have been produced that define any norms or guidelines drawn from businesses. Even though no tangible documents exist, a constitution was created because rules of the land must be respected. A land would struggle if its people did not have rules to obey because there would be disruption and turmoil since the people would not know what was right and wrong.
Another case I’ll be discussing is Entick v Carrington (1765). I selected to analyze this case because of the significant impact it has on the constitution. This case, in particular, demonstrated the boundaries that had been imposed for the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction to ensure that warrants may be granted. One of the benefits of Common Law is that citizens’ rights are safeguarded, which means that the government is held accountable for what it does to the public. The people can then comprehend that rules are not just there to limit what they can and cannot do, but also to protect them. Uncertainty arises as a result of the ease with which rules can be modified under Common Law. Discussions have also taken place on other acts, which include the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Treason Act 1351, and other types of statutes, of which I have only mentioned a few.
Another example that I shall use for the British Constitution is conventions. Even though conventions are incredibly important in the British Constitution, the courts are unable to impose them on the public. Conventions are known as binding for the people since they ensure that the constitution is followed on a regular basis. A convention cannot be declared punitive, and people are not required to obey it. An example of a convention from the British Constitution is how the Queen can pick who she wants to be the next Prime Minister, but the convention specifies that the leader of a party is elected by the number of seats that they earn in Parliament. As a result, the Queen will never choose someone based purely on her personal preferences, but will instead let the people of her country to choose who they believe is best. Another example of a tradition is when discussing who has responsibility for Parliament, the minister is mentioned. When speaking, the minister must use a single tone and demonstrate trustworthiness by keeping conversations private and only revealing when absolutely necessary. The minister should not take sides because he does not want to be perceived as biased. I selected the case of Carltona Ltd v. Commissioner of Works  2 ALL ER 560 as an example because it involved conventions. This concept arose from the government department as a result of a convention agreement reached between ministers, which was viewed as a type of case law.
The Common Law is another source for constitutional papers, which are referred to as court decisions. These are laws that would not have been passed by Parliament but would have been decided by the courts. When discussing the constitution’s hierarchy, several points of view emerge. The European Communities Act of 1972 and the Magna Carta 1215 are viewed as fundamental laws that can be readily amended, again because they are not written down. Case Law can be described as unpredictable because it is easily changed, which means that constitutional ideas that present themselves are not protected and ordinary members of the public would be unable to determine them, though this can be done if they know where to find the information to prove their point. Before using them, persons must ensure that they have acquired sufficient proof to back up their claim.
After summarizing the preceding, I believe that a big portion of the British Constitution is perceived by the public as vague due to the manner in which it has been presented and the manner in which the acts are available. In one sense, a constitution can be defined as rooted, but because of social and political influences that diverge from the conventions, as well as eliminating or changing the Constitutional Statutes, even though many people believe that this can be done easily, politicians will face difficulties. This differs from the American system because the American Constitution is more stringent, and if we had the same approach as they had, it would limit what Parliament could do with the statutes. One of the reasons I believe the constitution is set up this way is to provide flexibility to Parliament. A constitution that can alter and be changed because it can be moved around easily and is not stated in a single document does not imply that Parliament’s power will be constrained. This means that, unlike in the United States, where laws are more difficult to amend, Parliament can change or amend any of the acts if necessary. The benefits of having a non-coded constitution means that the Prime Minister and Parliament are given a lot of flexibility, which means that this will be the same for every Parliament that follows.
We’ll do everything to write a perfect essay for you