Comparison 9 marker
Explain and analyse 3 differences between US and UK constitutions.
The structure of a constitution refers to what the consitution comprises of, what systems it creates and the rules that are formed due to it. For example one of the most important differences between the UK and US constitutions is the separation of powers, this refers to a system of government that is divided into 3 seperate branches, the legislative, executiveand judicial branch each with seperate and independent powers that keep the branches in check and stop one branch from being much more powerful than the other. In America the separation of powers is guaranteed by the constitution and all three of their branches of goverment are separated and cannot interfere with each other. The US also has a 'separation of personnel' which means that one person cannot be in more than one branch of government at the same time. For example in 2021 Kamala Harris became the first female VP of the United States which is part of the executive branch but because her job at the time was a Senator for California in the legislative branch she had to give that role up in order to become VP, this clearly highlights the significance of the separation of powers due to the constitution being sovereign it therefore means it is taken seriously. Unlike in the UK where they do not have a separation of personnel, for example the current prime minister Rishi Sunak is also an MP for Richmond. The UK also directly contrasts with the US as they have a fusion of powers where the powers of the executive and legislative government branches are intermingled as the Prime Minister heads the executive and, their government passes the legislation based off a majority in the Commons, because of these overlaps there can be an amalgamation of powers. Another example is up until 2005 the position of Lord Chancellor was a fusion of all 3 branches of the UK's political system this pointing out their weak version of separation of powers, and how it is less greatly enforced in the UK than it is in the US.
Another difference between the UK and US constitutions is federalism and devolution. In the US federalism, meaning, a governmental system where power is divided between the central and state governments each with their own secure powers, was written into their constitution by the founding fathers with the intent to create a country where power was not just centralised to one organisation, like it was when the British ruled. Unlike the UK the US have separate jurisdiction between state and federal government this meaning that the states have power to make legal decisions over things like local taxes and abortion rights. However the federal government have the power to make legal decisions over bigger issues the states couldn't make on their own, such as controversies between states and foreign governments. Therefore the states still play key roles in us politics, however in the UK we do not have federalism and instead have a system where power is devolved from Westminster to subnational regions such as Wales and Scotland, however unlike where in the US the government cannot get rid of these states, in the UK these powers aren't permanent and can be reversed by the central government (westminster). Due to the fact that the regional governments do not have the power over all policy areas and do not run alongside the UK government in contrast to the US states where they do, they also have less power than the US states have in their respective systems.
Finally the last difference between the US and UK constitutions is the nature of the constitution meaning what form the constitution is in. For example when the original constitution was signed by the founding fathers in the USA they purposely made sure that the document would be codified, meaning completely written down in one document, and fully entrenched this meaning it is very hard to change and amend the constitution. For example, in order to change the US constitution you need a super majority of 2/3 majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives and a 3/4 majority of states this makes it extremely hard to pass bills. For example even a bill like The Equal Rights Amendment which would guarantee protection against sexual discrimination to women, didn't get passed this reinforcing the nature of the US constitution being so entrenched. However this was purposely done, so that fast unthought through decisions can't get passed that can negatively affect the public in the future. It therefore allows for more people to get involved in what they want to pass. However in contrast the UK's constitution is uncodified and flexible it has always been this way, as unlike America we have never had an abrupt change like a revolution where the constitution needed to be codified with entrenched rights. Instead the constitution is made up of laws and conventions, the flexibility of the UK's constitution is different to America as it is more adaptable and can progress with modern times. This because only a simple majority in the Commons and the Lords is needed to pass ammendment legislation. For example during covid because the UK's constitution is so easy to amend we could pass legislature extremely easily to protect citizens, in contrast America found this much more difficult as their constitution isn't as flexible.
UK 9 marker
Explain and analyse 3 ways judicial neutrality is ensured in the UK.
Judicial neutrality is a fundamental precept of the rule of law, and is how judges remain neutral and unbiased while making rulings and therefore upholding the rule of law. One way it is ensured is the fact judges are meant to stay relatively anonymous, meaning they aren't supposed to be public figures in the news and media where their judgements can be influenced. Therefore when they make rulings they're never followed by the media the way public figures are, and aren't expected to publicly defend their decisions in the media. For example David Davis ,a politician, gave direct criticism towards the 2016 ruling that the government couldn't trigger ASO without parliamentary approval, however Davis was heavily criticised for not accepting the decision and trying to politicise the role. Therefore illustrating that public criticism should not and does not affect their decisions due to them not being public figures and not being expected to respond to any criticism.
Another way judicial neutrality is ensured is through restricted political activity, this referring to the fact judges are restricted in the way they cannot publicise their vote. If they choose to do so their political preferences must not be known or made apparent, this ensures neutrality by making purely a-political decisions that are for the interest of the public. This way they can't be criticised for making decisions based on political preference. With this they also cannot endorse or campaign for candidates, specific positions or pressure groups like political parties or advocacy groups so that they remain impartial. Therefore political issues are not something that is in their mind whilst a decision is made, instead their decisions are made solely on the interpretation of the law. For example, in the case of R V Attorney General, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the release of Prince Charles correspondence in letter form with government ministers, and weather the Attorney General had the legal authority to veto the release of these letters. The SC ruled that the attorney general's veto was unlawful, and emphasised that the government needs to be transparent and accountable, due to the fact the SC does not publish their political preferences and is in theory not supposed to have any, it made it easy for them to rule against the government without criticism that it was due to political preferences.
Finally judicial neutrality is ensured through the use of legal justification, although they aren't public figures and don't have to make public statements as to why their decision was the way it was, they do have to give some sort of reasoning for their decisions through written judgements. This ensures that even if they wanted to act in a way that wasn't politically neutral, they have to due to the consequences of not. It means that when making a decision, it must be backed up by the law and legal reasonings so that it cannot be questioned by legal experts to be of any personal bias. Albeit, by the time SC justices get to their role on the SC they should be used to acting in a judicially neural way, this just adds another layer to ensure neutrality by making it almost impossible to get obviously biased decisions made without criticism. For example, in the case of R Miller v Secretary of State for exiting the European Union in 2017, the SC ruled it is unlawful for the government to trigger article 50, initiating us to leave the European Union, without parliamentary approval. They had to give their reason for this so it is clear they have political neutrality, and their reasoning came to be that it was such a large nation affecting decision, that would be such a significant constitutional change, it is crucial to have all of parliament as representatives of the UK as a whole to also make this decision. This ensured judicial neutrality as they had to explain their reasoning for this decision.
Explain and analyse 3 ways that liberal thinkers have viewed state intervention.
One way the state has been viewed by liberal thinks is being one of fundamental reasons for inequality in society, and therefore they saw state intervention as a piece of the puzzle to create universal equality. This line of thinking is shown through Mary Wollstonecraft in her book "A Vindication Of The Rights Of Women' who, in much of her writing was criticising 18th century society and its illiberal thinking it was upholding. She expressed state intervention was needed due to the fact women were being denied property, right to government, treated as irrational so denied formal equality based on that, and finally expected to give up individualisation as wives. She explained we cannot be a liberal society if we limit the freedom of women, therefore the state needed to intervene to allow for this universal freedom, as they were the ones who could legislate it is crucial for them to intervene to change society. For example her views on state intervention influenced later feminist movements which in turn led to voting reform by the state intervening to legislate The Representation Of The People's Act 1918. However as much as she believed state intervention was necessary for this, she also believed that it still should be limited in areas such as personal relationships and individual choices for example marriage. She emphasised the importance of individual autonomy which will allow us freedom and the right to make decisions without excessive unnecessary government intervention.
Another way the state has been viewed by liberal thinkers is that we don't really need the state, and therefore state intervention isn't completely necessary but must be in our best interested if it is used. This line of thinking is shown through John Locke the 'father of liberalism'. He believed that, following on from Hobbes thought experiment of how life would be like if we did not have a state, this would not be that bad, due to his belief human nature is essentially good or at least rational and therefore life without a state can be pleasant, and we can still work and get along without it. This led to his belief that we don't really need the state to be able to function so, if we do get a state it will need to lead to a society that is better than what wed have without it, it would need to actually benefit us and must only rule by our consent doing what's best for us. In his view it therefore needs to be a limited government because it only needs to do what's best for us, and benefits us and noting else we don't consent to, and therefore shouldn't be intervening in our personal lives. To ensure this happens state intervention will be in some sort of social contract where we only have to obey the state if it meets our obligations.
Finally the last way it has been viewed is absolutely essential to our freedom. This view has been expressed by John Rawls in his writings 'A Theory Of Justice', who believed that we need real equality of opportunity where the state aswell as not placing limitations on us, also intervenes to stop any societal inequalities from affecting us and our opportunities in life, as we all deserve the equal opportunity to achieve our goals. He explained this will require a significant redistribution of wealth, for example to be able to have real equality of opportunity we'd need to fund state schools up to the level of private schools so that we get equal chances of succeeding. This requires state intervention to regulate and introduce this. He created a thought experiment which illustrates just how essential the state is in his view. The experiments starts off with you being asked to design a state of your choosing but your behind a 'veil of ignorance, where you aren't sure exactly who you'd be in this state. Rawls assumed any rational person would create a state where they have equal chance of achieving a good outcome, and inequality only justified when it benefits the worst off, for example entrepreneurs payed more because they create a surplus of jobs for the worst off. This design of the state couldn't be done without state intervention creating and sustaining it. Rawls claims that we would all consent rationally to a society that protects our fundamental rights, ensures real equality of opportunity, and inequalities only justified when they benefit the least well off. All of these concepts need state intervention to work and therefore, Rawls does not see limited state intervention as a good thing or necessary at all, instead for him its crucial for us to even be able to get some sort of free state as without it we will not have a really 'equal' society.
© Copyright mypoliticsnotes