A Constitution is a document or a set of documents that determines where power is located and the rules

by which a country should be governed. It essentially establishes the extent of the government's authority
and the rights of the people within. In this essay, I will examine the differences in the key features of both
the UK’s Constitution and the US. The factors I will investigate will include, the nature of the
constitutions, how power is divided, the limits to the Executive's power, the separation of powers and
finally the rule of law. And in the end, I will establish that there are many key differences between the two
Constitutions.

The UK and US constitutions also have differing interpretations of the nature of their constitutions. The
UK constitution is uncodified, this means that no single document makes up the UK constitution. The UK
constitution has evolved over hundreds of years and is established on sources such as common law,
statute law, and EU treaties. It can be amended by a Parliamentary vote. This signifies that it is much
easier for the government to amend the UK constitution. For example, in 2020 the EU Withdrawal Bill
was passed after the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016. Despite two Prime Ministers losing their positions
over Brexit, Johnson eventually signed a deal allowing the UK to leave the EU in 2021. This exemplified
how Parliament can adapt the UK constitution due to its uncodified nature; it can be adapted easily if
there is a political will to do so. However, it is much more difficult for the US constitution to be amended.
The USA has a codified constitution contained within one written document. It sets out the federal system
of government and the rights US citizens are entitled to. It provides clear rules and limits of government
and ensures that all aspects of government have clearly defined roles which cannot be deviated from. For
example, many Americans favour stricter gun control however this has proved to be especially difficult as
the constitution states that Americans have the right to bear arms. Therefore this shows that it can be
difficult to amend the US Constitution as it is entrenched and exceedingly challenging to modify. This
shows massive differences between both constitutions as the UK is easily amended and can be removed
whereas the US constitution is rigid and quite difficult to amend.

The British Constitution has been described as having a unitary constitution as the ultimate legal and
political power which is focused centrally in Westminster. Parliament has the legal authority to enact laws
for all three legal jurisdictions that make up the UK. Under Parliament, there exist the following layers of
decentralized government such as; local authorities and the Scottish Parliament. These layers of
decentralized government only exist by parliament in Westminster. In other words, they theoretically
could be abolished by a subsequent Act of Parliament. These administrations cannot exercise authority
without the permission of the UK Parliament. For example, the UK Parliament blocked Scotland’s Gender
Recognition Bill which was passed by the Scottish Parliament last month. This shows that the UK
Constitution doesn’t allow developed administrations full authority over their affairs thus restricting the
neighbouring country’s liberties. However, the US Constitution permits a federal state, which means that
these individual states have the authority to determine their policies. The states have powers which are
allocated to them by the constitution which cannot be taken by the government as they can in the UK. For
example, Colorado legalized the use of cannabis in 2014. Therefore this exhibits that in the US each state
is entitled to make its own decisions as federalism guarantees constitutional independence for the
individual states. Overall both nations’ constitutions lead to a very different distribution of power.
Therefore the status of the UK and US Constitution are different as the UK has one sort of legality and the
US gives legal rights to individual states.

Both the UK and the US also have different key principles which are exercised through their constitutions.
One of the UK Constituion’s key principles is parliamentary sovereignty. This means that the UK
Parliament retains supreme power over any other institutional powers, and any legislation can be
overturned by the next increasing Parliament. However, there are adequate checks and balances in place
to preclude an autocratic executive from coming into power. For example, in 2010 Parliament tried to
pass a fixed term Parliament acted but that was then repealed by Parliament in 2022. Therefore this
shows Parliament effectively putting checks on their power. However, the US Constitution is composed of
checks and balances. This means that there are mechanisms built into the US Constitution to put a check
on the authority of government institutions. For example, Congress can remove a president additionally if
Congress tries to pass a law, the president has the power to veto it. Therefore the nature of the UK and the
US Constitution is varied since the US has a more effective system that makes sure no one branch of
government can become too powerful whereas in the UK there is limited effectiveness in holding the
government accountable.

In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister must be a member of Parliament. Thus establishing the Prime
Minister as a member of both the Executive and Legislative. Additionally, the Prime Minister also has the
authority to appoint members to the Supreme Court. However, although the executive retains many
authoritative powers, the Legislative can dismiss a Prime Minister via a vote of no confidence. For
example, the last vote of confidence was carried out in 2019 against Theresa May’s government although it
was defeated. Therefore this demonstrates that the Executive is not entirely elusive as the Legislative still
can convey their lack of support for the Prime Minister if they have lost faith in them via a vote of no
confidence. However, in the United States Constitution, there is a clear separation of powers. The
constitution is broken up into three separate branches with equal power; The Legislative Branch exercises
congressional power, The Executive Branch exercises executive power, and The Judicial Branch exercises
judicial review. For example, Barack Obama had to resign a senator once elected as president. This shows
the strict separation of powers in the US effectively not allowing any one branch of government to retain
too much power. Therefore the nature of the UK and US constitutions is different as there is a very limited
separation of powers in the UK which contrasts with the US where the three branches are independent of
each other.

Finally, both the Constitution of the UK and the US have differing interpretations of their Rule of Law. In
the UK; the rule of law is a fundamental principle underpinning the UK constitution. Its core principles
include limits on state power, protection for fundamental rights and judicial independence. The UK also
has the 'Human Rights Act' of 1998 which was statured into UK law and allows all citizens of the UK to be
protected. For example, in 2004; a law that prevented a gay couple from inheriting a council flat was
struck down under the HRA. Therefore this shows that strong legal protection for core civil and political
rights can be granted via The Human Rights Act. However, this Act isn't entrenched and thus can be
replaced unlike the Bill of Rights in the US. The USA has a codified Constitution and an embedded set of
rights that all US citizens possess. These can be found in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the
Constitution, and contain guaranteed rights such as freedom of speech. Further rights can be found in
subsequent amendments. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection
under the law, is an amendment that has proved crucial to securing the legal rights of African Americans
and LGBTQ+ Americans. The fact that these rights are still being upheld two centuries later can be seen as
one of the great strengths of the US Constitution. Therefore this shows that eliminating or weakening
rights in the UK is simple as it merely requires an Act of Parliament. Whereas in the USA it requires a
constitutional amendment. Overall showing that both Constitutions have different yet significant
measures in place to ensure that citizens are treated equally before the law.

In conclusion, the UK and US constitutions have different features and importance when compared to
each other. On the one hand, while the origin of the UK constitution has been evolving over a mass
amount of time, on the other the US constitution was created almost instantaneously. There are also
massive comparisons which can be made about the key principles of the constitutions as well as they also
have different ideas as they have different key principles. The nature of the UK constitution is easily
amended whereas the US constitution is very hard to be amended and can only be amended by the
supreme court if they rule an action as unconstitutional, the separation of powers allows no executive to
retain too much power, checks and balances are placed on the US government Parliamentary Sovereignty
in the UK can limit a Prime Ministers' power, differences can be seen through the fact that the UK is a
unitary state where in whose devolved administrations require the consent of Westminster whereas the
US granted authority to the individual states and finally the UK and the US constitutions have different
features and interests when it comes to the role of safeguarding individual rights. Therefore showing the
many key differences between both the Constitutions.