Britain's Influence On The Us Constitution

The UK constitution is unique in that it is not contained in a single document but is a combination of written and unwritten rules and principles. This means that the UK Parliament is sovereign and can make or change any law without being limited by a constitutional text. The UK constitution recognises some Acts of Parliament as having special constitutional status, such as the Magna Carta, which dates back to 1215 and required the King to call a common counsel (now called Parliament) to represent the people, and the Act of Settlement 1701, which prevented Catholics from taking the English throne. The Act of Settlement 1700 also created an independent system of justice, with judges being salaried and protected from removal except by both Houses of Parliament. The Acts of Union 1707 united Scotland and England to create a new state, Great Britain, with a single legislature and Scottish representation in Westminster.

Explore related products

Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (Cambridge Studies on the American Constitution)

$34.99 $41

Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law

$31.49 $51

Popular Sovereignty in Early Modern Constitutional Thought (Oxford Constitutional Theory)

$60 $165

Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World

$13.99 $19.99

Constitutional Triumphs, Constitutional Disappointments: A Critical Assessment of the 1996 South African Constitution's Local and International Influence

$99 $51.99

The British Influence in South Africa During the Nineteenth Century

$65

The Act of Settlement 1700

The Act of Settlement, passed in 1700 (or 1701, according to some sources), was a pivotal piece of legislation that played a significant role in shaping the British constitution. This act addressed both dynastic and religious aspects of succession, reinforcing the principles established in the Bill of Rights.

One of its key provisions was securing the Protestant succession to the throne. With the uncertainty surrounding the future of succession due to the lack of surviving heirs of James II's daughters, the Act ensured that the crown would pass to Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (James I's granddaughter), and her Protestant heirs. This provision not only reinforced the Protestant faith of future sovereigns but also established Parliament's right to decide on the line of succession, enhancing its power.

The Act of Settlement also further restricted the powers of the Crown. It mandated that parliamentary consent was necessary for the Sovereign to engage in war or leave the country. This marked a significant step towards a parliamentary system of government, where the Crown governed with its constitutional advisers (its Ministers) rather than personal advisers of their choosing. Additionally, the Act contributed to the independence of the judiciary by safeguarding judges' salaries and positions. Judges could not be removed except by both Houses of Parliament, ensuring judicial independence and empowering them to enforce the law without fear of retribution.

Furthermore, the Act of Settlement stipulated that no member of the House of Commons could receive payment from the Crown, and the Crown had to be Anglican. This further emphasised the separation of powers and the independence of Parliament from the monarchy. The Act also contained provisions regarding the geographical extent of its application, indicating the specific areas to which it applied.

Overall, the Act of Settlement 1700 was a significant contributor to the British constitution. It addressed issues of succession, restricted the powers of the monarchy, strengthened the parliamentary system, ensured judicial independence, and clarified the relationship between the Crown and Parliament. These provisions laid the foundation for the principles and rules that continue to define and shape Britain's political system.

The Treaty and Acts of Union of 1706-1707

The Treaty of Union was the result of negotiations between commissioners from the English and Scottish Parliaments. The details of the Treaty, consisting of 25 articles, were finalised on 22 July 1706. The articles covered various topics, with a significant focus on economic matters. The Treaty stipulated an incorporating union, uniting the two kingdoms into a single kingdom named Great Britain, with its own royal coat of arms and a combined flag of the crosses of St Andrew and St George.

The Acts of Union refer to two separate acts passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707, which gave legal effect to the Treaty of Union. The Scottish Parliament faced significant opposition and debate, with the prospect of union being deeply unpopular among the Scottish population. Despite this, the Act ratifying the Treaty was passed in the Scottish Parliament by 110 votes to 69, with key amendments, on 16 January 1707. The English Parliament soon followed with their equivalent Act.

The Acts of Union dissolved the separate parliaments of Scotland and England, creating a new Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster. This united legislature represented a significant shift in the political landscape, as Scotland and England had shared a monarch since 1603 but maintained distinct legislatures. The Acts also ensured the continuation of Scottish private law within a Scottish court system.

The UK's uncodified constitution

The UK's constitution is unique in that it is uncodified, meaning its core aspects are not contained in a single legal source. This is in contrast to many other countries, where the constitution is the 'supreme law'. Due to its uncodified nature, the UK Parliament is considered 'sovereign', with the power to make or unmake any law without being limited by a constitutional text. This parliamentary sovereignty is the cornerstone of the UK's constitution, enabling the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.

The absence of a written constitution in the UK can be attributed to its history. Notably, the UK did not experience a revolution or political rupture during the late eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, when written constitutions gained popularity following the American Revolutionary War. Instead, the UK's constitution comprises written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body.

One key aspect of the UK's uncodified constitution is the recognition of certain Acts of Parliament as having special constitutional status. For example, the Magna Carta, agreed upon in 1215, established the principle of parliamentary sovereignty by requiring the King to call a "common counsel" (now Parliament) to represent the people and uphold their rights. The Act of Settlement 1701 further enhanced parliamentary power by establishing Parliament's right to decide on the line of succession and providing for the independence of the judiciary.

The Treaty and Acts of Union of 1706-1707 also played a significant role in shaping the UK's uncodified constitution. The Acts of Union, passed by both the English and Scottish Parliaments, united Scotland and England to form the Parliament of Great Britain, a single legislature representing a single state. This merger dissolved the separate parliaments of Scotland and England and gave Scottish electors representation in Westminster, while allowing Scottish private law to continue under its own court system.

Devolution has also been a significant feature of the UK's uncodified constitution. The Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 all contributed to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Executive, respectively. These acts reflect the UK Parliament's power to legislate on specific topics and delegate legislative authority to other bodies.

Explore related products

Democracy Distorted: Wealth, Influence and Democratic Politics (Law in Context)

$37.05 $39

The English Historical Constitution: Continuity, Change and European Effects

$65 $130

Law and Revolution: Legitimacy and Constitutionalism After the Arab Spring (Oxford Constitutional Theory)

$32.89 $54

The King Maker: The Man Who Saved George VI

$11.99 $17.99

Moral Puzzles and Legal Perplexities: Essays on the Influence of Larry Alexander

$75.4 $119

China’s Influence and the Center-periphery Tug of War in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Indo-Pacific (Routledge Studies on Challenges, Crises and Dissent in World Politics)

$83.93 $160

The US Constitution vs. the UK Constitution

The US Constitution and the UK Constitution differ in several ways, including their historical origins, structures, and amendments.

The US Constitution was created in 1787 by a group of delegates, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention as its president. The convention was held to forge a new federal government and resolve commercial problems among the states, with delegates debating and compromising to create a bold, new government. The US Constitution consists of several articles that embody the separation of powers and federalism. The first three articles divide the federal government into three branches: the legislative, consisting of Congress; the executive, consisting of the President and their subordinates; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

The UK, on the other hand, does not have a single, unified, written constitution like the US. Instead, the UK's constitution is uncodified, consisting of various sources, including statutes, court judgments, and conventions. The UK's constitutional principles have evolved over time through significant historical documents like the Magna Carta, which influenced the US Constitution's Due Process Clause and served as a foundation for English liberty against arbitrary power.

One key difference between the two constitutions is their approach to amendments. The US Constitution has been amended several times, including the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), which abolished slavery, and the Sixteenth Amendment (1913), which expanded federal taxing power. In contrast, the UK's uncodified constitution can be amended through various processes, including passing new laws in Parliament.

Additionally, the US Constitution has a bill of rights, which was a contentious issue during its formation, with anti-Federalists arguing for its inclusion. The bill of rights ensures individual liberties and protects against issues like direct taxation and the loss of state sovereignty. The UK, while not having a single bill of rights, protects fundamental rights through various means, including the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK has incorporated into its law.

In summary, while both the US and UK Constitutions provide the framework for their respective countries' governments, they differ in their historical origins, structures, and amendment processes, reflecting the unique political and historical contexts of each nation.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

The UKSC was formally established on October 1, 2009, as a non-ministerial government department. It is composed of a President, Deputy President, and ten Justices of the Supreme Court, all with the style of "Justice of the Supreme Court." The President and Deputy President are appointed separately to their roles, and the ten Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) holding office on October 1, 2009, became the first judges of the twelve-member Supreme Court.

The creation of the Supreme Court was first proposed in a consultation paper published by the Department of Constitutional Affairs in July 2003. The paper argued for the explicit separation of the judicial functions of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords from the legislative functions of the House of Lords. It raised concerns about the transparency and independence of the judiciary and the limitations on the ability of the Law Lords to contribute fully to the House's work.

The Supreme Court has heard cases of great public and constitutional importance, including R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, known as Miller/Cherry. This case involved Boris Johnson's unlawful prorogation of Parliament to suppress debate in anticipation of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union. The Supreme Court also has the power to make declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, indicating that it believes a piece of legislation is incompatible with the rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Frequently asked questions