Pros And Cons Of Written Constitution

Words: 461
Pages: 2

Written constitutions hold numerous pros and cons. The idea of a written constitution in many countries is present, plenty of countries around the world are known to have codified constitutions, an example of this is the USA. Firstly a pro to be discussed is that Constitutions sustain a considerable level of importance within societies (for example the UK Constitution); all constitutions are the highest fundamental principles to there whereabouts, whether this be a country such as the UK or the USA; or just a general organisation such as a sports team for instance. This therefore builds the argument that they should be drafted, and be placed within one document (codified). The idea of codifying a Constitution can be considerably advantageous, this is because it generates a sense of accessibility, an example of this is the US Constitution having the entirety written in one place composes the argument that it is easy for the majority of individuals to view and understand ‘…matters of such importance should be …show more content…
Firstly, if a constitution was to be codified then it is likely that it can easily become outdated, written constitutions can often be seen as being rigid, and so, lacking the occasional necessity of flexibility. This is a considerable problem with any written constitution because it means that it cannot be easily changed to appropriately cope with with frequent changes in our language, legislation and society. This cites the idea of how written constitutions can frequently be seen as being documents that are outdated. However, there could be reasoning why certain countries wish for their constitution to be codified, despite their understanding that it is likely to become outdated as time goes on. For instance, a country may deliberately ratify the idea of a written constitution because they believe that it may ‘protect individuals