The English Constitutional Law: An Overview

The study of English constitutional law requires a deep understanding of numerous documents, such as constitutional treaties, statutes, judicial decisions, and other legal sources. However, it is important to note that the full Constitution of Britain cannot be found in any single document. Unlike some other countries, the English Constitution is often referred to as "unwritten" because it is not codified in one place. This contrasts with countries that have a single, formalized written constitution. Despite having some written components, the English Constitution is considered flexible, as Parliament has the ability to "make or unmake" laws with ease, through the same procedures.

In England, the Constitution is not regarded as the source of law, but rather, it is shaped and governed by the laws themselves. The monarchy, while symbolically sovereign, holds a largely ceremonial role. Legally, the ultimate authority resides with Parliament, making it the supreme governing body. Rights of individuals are primarily derived from actual legal actions, and the judiciary has a defined role, operating under laws established by statutes and judicial precedents.

The relationship between theory and practice in English constitutional law can be divergent. For example, in theory, the Sovereign plays a significant role in law-making, but in practice, their power is largely symbolic, with the veto power being almost non-existent in contemporary politics. Additionally, while members of Parliament are theoretically judges of the House of Lords and have judicial powers, in practice, they rarely take part in judicial work. There are also cases where high-ranking officials are supposed to oversee specific public departments, but in reality, the control lies with a single Minister of the Crown, such as the President of the Board of Trade. The Cabinet forms a crucial link between the Legislature and Executive branches, underscoring the interconnectedness of these roles in England.

Moreover, conventions play a significant role in the functioning of the English Constitution. These conventions dictate the duties of the monarchy, ministers, and other state figures. They help guide the practice and behavior of key governmental players, ensuring a degree of order and consistency.

When comparing the English Constitution to that of the United States, several key differences emerge:

1. Executive Power: In America, the President has more actual authority than the English King, though his powers are legally more restricted. For instance, the American President has the power to veto legislation, whereas the English King’s veto power is largely symbolic and has not been exercised in modern times.

2. Flexibility vs. Rigidity: The English Constitution is flexible, allowing for changes to laws with relative ease, while the American Constitution is rigid, requiring complex processes for amendments.

3. Written vs. Unwritten Constitution: The United States has a written Constitution, whereas the English Constitution is unwritten, relying on conventions, statutes, and legal precedents.

4. Leadership and Election: The English Crown is inherited, while the American President is elected for a fixed term. Additionally, the American President is not dependent on Congress for political survival, whereas the British Cabinet is accountable to the House of Commons.

5. Legislature and Executive Interaction: The American President operates separately from the Legislature, while in England, the Cabinet bridges the gap between the Legislature and the Executive.

The English Constitution, in its unwritten form, is highly unique and flexible, reflecting the historical evolution of British political structures. It contrasts significantly with the rigid and written American Constitution, highlighting the differences in the political systems and governance between the two nations.