What is a written constitution

A written constitution is a formal document defining the nature of the constitutional

settlement, the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and governments
in a codified form.

The UK's constitution is not written in a single document, but derives from a number of
sources that are part written and part unwritten, including accumulated conventions, works of
authority, Acts of Parliament, the common law, and EU law.

Historically, the UK has not had a definable statement of individual rights and freedoms
either - the 1689 Bill of Rights sets out the powers of parliament vis a vis the monarch - but
rather relies on the notion of residual freedom and the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

Therefore, individuals' rights remained dependent on ad hoc statutory protection or upon

judicial protection under common law.

This contrasts to many European and Commonwealth countries and the United States,
which have a clearly defined constitutional settlement.

The closest thing the UK has to a bill of rights today is the Human Rights Act 1998,
which incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) into domestic law.

Unwritten constitution

A constitution in which no single, formal document delineates the powers of a

government, and the limits thereof. Instead, an unwritten constitution comprises the body of a
country's laws, enacted over time, coupled with an emphasis on political precedent and enshrined
parliamentary procedure, to create a framework in which a limited government operates.
Although these principles are not codified in a single law, they are still recognized by courts,
legislators, and executives as binding upon government, limiting its powers. Thus, a court might
cite "the constitution" in forbidding an exercise of power, even though no document exists.

Constitutional Convention

Is usually called the CON-CON, is a body organized and convened for the purpose of
framing and adopting a new constitution, or of revising and amending the current one. The
delegates of the Constituent body are either chosen or elected by the people as may be provided
by law.

Requisites of a good written constitution.

As to form, a good written constitution should be:
 A. Brief- because if a constitution is too detailed, it would lose the advantage of a
fundamental law which in a few provisions outlines the structure of the government of the whole
state and the rights of the citizens. It would probably never be understood by the public.
Furthermore, it would then be necessary to amend it every once in a while to cover many
contingencies;

B. Broad- because a statement of the powers and functions of government, and of the
relations of the governing body and the governed, requires that it be as comprehensive as
possible ( the scope must be wide enough to make the constitution flexible and easily adaptable
to changing social, economic, and political conditions, and thus enable it, without amendment, to
meet every exigency, for a constitution is designed to be a permanent document to serve a
country for many generations-indeed, if possible "to endure for ages t come"); and

C. Definite- because otherwise the appplication of its provisions to concrete situations

may prove unduly difficult if not impossible. Any vagueness which may lead to opposing
interpretations of essential features may cause incalculable harm. Civil war and disruption of the
state may conceivably follow from ambiguous expressions in a constitution.

The Constitution needs to be definite, brief, and broad in order to be versatile and able to
be used years down the road. A constitution in any organization is supposed to be that
organization's core values. Some states made long constitutions and then they had to re-write
their constitutions over and over again. For instance, back in the 1700's it would have made
sense to make laws regarding horse-drawn carriages. A law regarding something like that would
be out-dated today because no one hardly uses horse draw carriages. A constitution is the highest
level of rule for a particular organization whether it be a state, country, school organization, etc.
So it's not something you want to be changing regularly. If you add too much and make it too
long, you risk certain aspects becoming outdated just like if some state had added a horse-drawn
carriage law to their constitution. Less important stuff like that should not be included in a
constitution but should be included in the regular state, federal, and city laws. Since a
constitution is the highest law for that organization, changes to it affect all of the laws below it.
So less important items should be passed as regular laws and not as part of the constitution so
they can be updated and changed more easily.

A constitution is kind of similar to the way a computer works. You have base computer
programming that runs the main functions of the computer. That programming you want to keep
concise and short and design it very well because tons of other programs are going to use it to be
able to perform their operations. The more complex you get that base code the more potential
you have for errors. The programs that run on the base code aren't nearly as hard to fix because if
something is wrong with them you only have one program to fix. On the other hand, if you have
to fix the base code that the computer runs on it could potentially create problems for all of the
programs or software that runs on that base code. Then a ton of reprogramming would have to be
done when that base code is changed because probably all of the software that runs on that base
code would have to be changed also. The same goes for a constitution. If you don't get it right,
then when you have to make a change to it you have to make a change to all of the laws that
were based on that portion of the constitution.
There is one other thing I would like to mention regarding the US Constitution. The US
Constitution was written by our forefathers to ensure freedom and justice for all in the US. Only
one amendment to the US Constitution was ever passed that limited the freedom of its citizens.
That was the amendment to ban the drinking of alcohol. That ban as you well know was lifted
several years later. No other part of the Constitution ever limited freedom of US citizens. If you
look, the rest are regarding guaranteeing rights, not limiting them.

Over the last several years, President Bush has pushed for a Constitutional ban on same sex
marriage. I believe that ideology is wrong. Remember, all of the current US Constitution is
written guaranteeing freedoms and rights. An amendment on banning same sex marriage would
be limiting rights. Limiting rights if it is ever done should be kept to regular laws and should not
be raised to the level of a constitutional amendment. The ideology of a country can change. If for
instance, the Congress had decided back in pre-Civil War times that an amendment should be
added to the Constitution banning the right of African Americans and women to vote. It could
have been a very likely possibility that even today neither women nor African Americans would
still be able to vote. But luckily our ancestors were smart enough not to add such amendments to
the Constitution that limit people's freedoms.

The same possibility could exhist if a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage was ever ratified.
Years down the road a large majority of US citizens might support same sex marriage then if
there was a constitutional ban on it, overriding that constitutional ban might be almost near to
impossible to do. So the likelihood could exhist that it could still be banned 50-100 years after
the American public might one day overwhelmingly agree that same sex marriage is OK.

If it is just a regular law, it may only take a few years to over-turn the law. An ideology of a
country can change, and the Constitution has to be written so that it can adapt and apply to those
changes. That is why it should guarantee freedoms, not limit them.