Codified v uncodified constitution
Codified v uncodified constitution - paragraph completion
3 paragraphs argue one side. You write the rebuttal and the interim judgement.
How this works. Each pre-written opening argues one side of the theme. Your job is the rebuttal: answer it with the named cases, then end on an interim judgement. Your writing saves on this device.
Paragraph 1 · theme: Clarity of the rules
Evaluate the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution.
The opening (given) - rebut this
Clarity of the rules is often used to argue the view. Brexit statutes (2016-20): Sewel bypassed, prorogation litigated - the era's phrase was constitutional crisis. Prorogation case (2019): Nobody could say in advance whether the prorogation was lawful. FTPA 2011 + repeal (2022): The 2019 deadlock showed nobody knew how the rules interacted. Read alone, these make the case look one-sided.
Your task - write the rebuttal
Answer back using the cases that point the other way: Human Rights Act (1998) (Convention rights listed in one Act citizens can read.); Constitutional Reform Act (2005) (Judicial independence now written down in statute.); Safety of Rwanda Act (2024) (Everyone knew exactly where the last word lay.). Finish with an interim judgement that backs your line of argument.
Paragraph 2 · theme: Executive constrained
Evaluate the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution.
The opening (given) - rebut this
Executive constrained is often used to argue the view. FTPA 2011 + repeal (2022): The constraint collapsed - the executive legislated around it (2019), then repealed it (2022). Brexit statutes (2016-20): Henry VIII powers in the Withdrawal Act let ministers amend statutes. Safety of Rwanda Act (2024): A determined majority can legislate around the courts. Read alone, these make the case look one-sided.
Your task - write the rebuttal
Answer back using the cases that point the other way: Human Rights Act (1998) (Declarations of incompatibility (Belmarsh 2004) put real pressure on ministers.); Prorogation case (2019) (The Court stopped the executive - but only after the fact.); Constitutional Reform Act (2005) (An independent court visibly separate from Parliament.). Finish with an interim judgement that backs your line of argument.
Paragraph 3 · theme: Strengthens the codification case
Evaluate the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution.
The opening (given) - rebut this
Strengthens the codification case is often used to argue the view. Brexit statutes (2016-20): Flexibility is exactly what let the UK leave - codification might have locked it in. Constitutional Reform Act (2005): Proof the uncodified constitution can deliver structural reform smoothly. Read alone, these make the case look one-sided.
Your task - write the rebuttal
Answer back using the cases that point the other way: Safety of Rwanda Act (2024) (For codifiers, the proof rights need entrenchment; for traditionalists, proof democracy decides.); FTPA 2011 + repeal (2022) (If election rules can be flipped by simple majority, only entrenchment makes them real.); Prorogation case (2019) (The strongest single modern argument that conventions are not enough.). Finish with an interim judgement that backs your line of argument.