It depends which way you look at it: an unwritten constitution means more manoeuvrability when it comes to law changing or simply instigating constitutional changes. For example, during the early 1900s the British House of Lords had the ability to veto any Bill presented by the House of Commons it wanted, as long as it had a majority decision. The exception of this was if a Bill was finacially related (under a Unwritten Constitution), which in most cases suited the Lords fine. However, in 1913 a financial Bill was presented which, to cut a long story short, would result in the loss of the Lords' money and power. Because there was no strct constitution, the Lords simply ignored previous tradition and vetoed the Bill. In this way, the British unwritten Constitution is an advantage to one party, but a disadvantage to another.
(The Bill was passed inevitably, when the house of commons sent through a law stating that the lords could no longer veto any bills at all, they got the support from the king and therefore the lords lost their power except they could now suspend bills but couldn't stop them.)
The British constitution is 'unwritten'. It is a collection of laws, conventions and case law. There is no codified constitution as there is for example, in the USA.
they are: written constitution, unwritten constitution, flexible constitution and rigid constitution.
the "unwritten constitution" consists of certain practices and traditions usually occurring in the government even though they were not included in any document. Some examples of the unwritten constitution are a two-party political system and the presidential cabinet.
It is not. An "unwritten" constitution can be modified whenever it is convenient to do so, because since nobody bothered to write it down, everybody has their own concepts of what it says. Because it can mean anything, it actually means nothing at all. A written constitution has the advantage that it is written down; there are words in ink on paper. People can try to re-interpret what they think it OUGHT to mean, as happens with the U.S. Constitution, but at least everybody has to start with the words as they actually exist.
There are many things that were not written into the Constitution, but can be interpreted from the document- For example, the cabinet and political parties.
Unwritten
The British constitution is 'unwritten'. It is a collection of laws, conventions and case law. There is no codified constitution as there is for example, in the USA.
unwritten constitution
the unwritten Constitution
The UK has the advantage of being able to change laws as the public and establishment change. The judiciary have less power as parliament is not undermined by
There is no unwritten constitution, so no laws are made as a result of one.
There is no unwritten constitution and the election laws for president are in the constitution.
The British constitution is an unwritten constitution, meaning that it does not exist in a single document or a set number of articles. It is composed of various laws, statutes, court decisions, and conventions that have evolved over time. Therefore, there is no specific number of articles in the British constitution.
England
unwritten constitution exists in
No, the constitution is clearly written.
No part of the government has an unwritten constitution. This is a fallacy that there is an unwritten constitution just like the idea of a "deep state."