'What is sovereignty?\r'

'The inclination of sovereignty is the appraisal of someone adopting unconditional power. For example in the United Kingdom we chasten about parliamentary sovereignty. This heart and soul that parliament holds supreme power in the lay with no constraints. However sovereignty is affected and controlled by certain things such as public whim and outside influences including the media etc. That is why although sovereignty gives supreme power to the be ber it buns sometimes be restricted by uncontrollable factor.\r\nHowever finally, if supplant all other influences and theories, sovereignty is the word use to describe something that is given to someone or something to hold supreme power, and this power should technically be un-unquestionable, that is the idea of sovereignty.\r\nWhere is sovereignty located in the UK?\r\nThe monarch primitively incessantly held sovereignty. However in 1649 after the position civil war sovereignty in the UK was turn over over to parliament after the execution of Charles I, and the racecourse of the farming became a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. incessantly since then, although the monarch is simmer down head of state, parliament has always held supreme power in the land. The monarch til now holds theoretical powers such as the command of the army but in practice these powers belong to the executive and ultimately the Prime Minister.\r\nUnlike the Ameri asshole presidential system where the President forms only one three of the three argonas of power, the British system relies on a majority to form the government. This can sometimes be a problem as the majority society holds all powers because the business firm of commons makes legislation and the house of lords can only block legislation for so long. The only person in theory that can tour a law being passed is the promote but this would be actually unpopular so in practice is non done.\r\nAlthough the House of car park and ultimately the execut ive hold supreme power, whilst we are a part of the European Union we must follow the laws and guidelines couch by them. This was shown when be introduced the tender Rights Act after the EU had made it law. So although in theory the UK could leave the EU if it actually disagreed with something, in practice this would not be economically or politically viable and so we are bound by their laws.\r\nSo although sovereignty ultimately rests with the executive, the monarch still has to agree to laws and the monarch still holds military powers but these are never employ in practice. The only constraint to sovereignty is the EU that we could technically leave at anytime. So practically sovereignty in the UK is located in spite of appearance the government but in theory the EU can say ‘no to our legislation. This is where sovereignty is located in the UK.\r\n wherefore has the UKs un-codified paper been criticised?\r\nOver the years the UKs un-written or un-codified physical c omposition has been criticised. This criticism has not only come from countries with a codified constitution but also within the UK as well. Although the UK constitution is un-codified it has however been around lengthy than any constitution in the entire world. This says that that occurrence that it has never been fully written down means that it has had a chance to evolve and so fulfil low for a long period of time.\r\nSome whitethorn argue that the American codified constitution was a necessity, as after the American war of independency the Americans needed a quick constitution serial away in order to run the country. on that point is no way that a country could throw off been set up without a codified constitution. The service of a codified constitution is that all of the development is there and cannot be removed unless two thirds of the government/senate agree. Acts can only be amended. This could also award as a disadvantage as a law that needed to be passed quickly would sequester at least a week to go through all of the houses to be added to the constitution.\r\nThe advantage of an un-codified constitution is that not everything is in black and white. This is where we get conventions and shift law. As not everything in the constitution is set in stone, if something were to be ambiguous then it could be taken to court for a ruling. Also we have conventions that are things that we do but are not written down. The advantage of having an un-codified constitution is that in an emergency and act or law can be added pr removed completely within twenty-four hours as no government can give another government.\r\nSo basically there are both advantages and disadvantages of both systems. With an un-codified constitution not everything is set in stone so things can be adjusted from case to case and also it is very quick and easy to change. The disadvantage to this is that this gives a consider of power to the executive and in theory they could run a dictatorship with no one to stop them. This is an advantage of a codified constitution because it is not very easily change and so does not give a lot of power to a few people. The disadvantage of this system is that things take a long time to change and can never be completely removed. Despite both the advantages and disadvantages of both of the systems, each system workings best for the country that uses it. So all the UKs constitution has been criticised it obviously works because it has lasted for such a long period of time.\r\n'