Instead of a written constitution, Great Britain has traditions. When traditions are respected, they work just as well as a written constitution.
The Constitution provided for a popularly elected House of Representatives
The Constitution does. The government makes laws and enforces them but the constitution actually protects individual's rights. The US is a constitutional federated republic. The government is kept in check by the constitution. Without the checks and balances that the constitution provides, the government could take away all rights of the people, controlling all they say and do. A government without checks and balances usually ends in dictatorship.
Many Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights to protect the people from the government.
The declaration of Independence was essentially the Continental Congress telling Britain they didn't want to be involved with them anymore. It's arguable that the Declaration of Independence was more important as it was the foundation for American independence and freedom, without which the Constitution wouldn't exist. However, the Declaration of Independence gave no system of government. Without the Constitution, the U.S. as we know it might not exist, or it might be very different, and quite possibly much worse.
Great Britain has what is considered to be an unwritten constitution. Certain understandings exist, about the nature of British government, but they are not in the form of any written document. Britain has a much longer history than the US, and in the middle ages, nations did not have constitutions, they just had rulers who made up their own rules and enforced them by force of arms. In Britain this gradually evolved into a democratic form of government, without ever having a constitutional convention, such as the American colonies had, following the Revolutionary War.
They have a different form of government, but France used our constitution as a model in 1787 when it had it's revolution.
no
Without a Bill of Rights, the Constitution lacked individual rights that should be guaranteed to all citizens. Also, some people thought that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government. The Bill of Rights made sure everyone had spelled out rights so the government can not take them away like Great Britain did.
Yes, the United States of America does have a constitution written down on paper. It was ratified in 1789.
Britain / England ruled all citizens without representation in Colonial America. The British had (have still) a monarchy. With the American Revolution, citizens fought for Independence from Britain, in part to end having no representation. The form of government that the Articles of Confederation established, and the US Constitution further defined and clarified, was a Republic form of government.
The Constitution provided for a popularly elected House of Representatives
The UK does not have a single, written document that they call their constitution. Instead, they have something called an 'uncodified constitution': a collection of customs, statutes, precedents, etc. that together form the fundamental rules of government.
The Constitution does. The government makes laws and enforces them but the constitution actually protects individual's rights. The US is a constitutional federated republic. The government is kept in check by the constitution. Without the checks and balances that the constitution provides, the government could take away all rights of the people, controlling all they say and do. A government without checks and balances usually ends in dictatorship.
without a government the countries would have problems with trade, religions, etc...
It was important because it served as a model for the Constitution of the United States.
Many Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights to protect the people from the government.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom to practice one's religion without interference from the government.