Question

составьте пожалуйста топик по тексту🙏

"Outlines of Constitutional Law"

(after Chalmers and Asquith's)

To understand English constitutional law it is necessary to study numerous documents, including constitutional treaties like the Bill of Rights, various statutes and judicial decisions and others.'But the whole of the Constitution of Britain will not be found in any of these documents.

The English constitution, though partly written, is yet to be regarded as

"unwritten" from the standpoint of constitutional lawyers, as it is not codified as a whole in any particular document or documents. The English Constitution is considered to be flexible because Parliament can

"make or unmake" any law' by the same procedure and with the same

ease.

The Constitution is not the source of the law, but the law gives bith to the Constitution.

Though the King (Queen) is the nominal Sovereign, any particular 

Patiamen darithe rigers o of is existence is legally supreme.

In England the rights of the subject are mostly deduced from actual dions in wiid ree dies have been afforded for their inva from. teusi

codes the right.

i sometimes said that under the English Constution the sion. y prit In administering justice the Judges enjoy little arbitrary power. The lay which they administer is defined by statutes and other documents having statutory validity", and by judicial precedents.*

Theory and practice concerning English constitutional law are diver-gent, as it is seen from the following illustrations:

1. In theory the Sovereign is to be an active party to the making of lavs, but in practice he has a shadowy veto.
2. In theory every Lord of Parliament is a Judge of the House of Lords, entitled to take part in appeals from the lower Courts; in practice he always absents himself unless qualified by statute to sit there as one of the quorum'".
3. In theory certain persons (e.g. Lord Mayor) are invested with judicial powers at trials in the Central Criminal Court, but in practice they don't take part in judicial work there.
4. In theory certain public departments are supposed to be controlled by boards consisting of various high officials (e.g. the Board of Trade), but the real head is a single Minister of the Crown (e.g. the President of the Board of Trade).
5. Finally, Legislature and Executive are joined together by a connecting chain — the Cabinet, ,

Certain important Conventions control the entire working ot the Con-stitution. These Conventions relate to the duties of the King as a person, the duties of the Ministers of the Crown and so on. Differences between the English and American Constitutions:

1. In America the President is in practice more of a ruler than the English King but his legal powers are more restricted.
2. The President can veto legislation, and the English King has legally an absolute but in practice a very shadowy power of veto which has not been exercised since long times.
3. The English Constitution is flexible, the American — rigid, i.e. in England all laws can be altered with ease, and in America complicated machinery is necessary for the alteration of the Constitution.
4. The American Constitution is written; the English Constitution is unwritten.

5.  The English Crown is inherited; the American President is elected for a term.

6. The American President is not dependent on the vote of the Con-gress; in England the Cabinet is dependent on the vote of the House of Commons. In America, therefore, the Executive is not responsible to the Legislature. England is the only country possessing hereditary legislators.

Answer 1

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.