Maurice Sunkin opines that defining constitution attracts variants. This way of going about constitution comfortably concedes to academic disagreement and emphatically encourages adaptation to opinion diversification. But it does not help to know what it entails; for example, it does not tell whether it simply means any set of rules or set of constitutional rules or something else. Given that the world constitutions are split into a variety of classifications pursuant to varying contexts, it is difficult to give a one-size-fits-all understanding of a constitution. However, a starting estimation of it is possible and can be gauged from Geoffrey Marshall’s definition who called it a set of legal and non-legal rules of governance, the purpose of which, as UCL Constitution Unit rightly pointed out, is to create, empower and limit state actors. And its defining feature is to evolve with changing times which made Hillarie Barnett call it a living and dynamic organism. Sans this feature, a constitution is entrenched, as is true of the Australian constitution which has approved only eight proposals out of a total of 44; a gap that has weakened its legitimacy. Besides boosting legitimacy, this evolution, inter alia, historical, cultural and political factors, is the impetus for five main divisions of the constitution. Learning these is one of the most effective ways of appreciating a constitution because it gives one lens for its letter and spirit.
Sorry you have no rights to view this Article/Post!
Please Login or Register to view the complete Article
To get full access EMAIL your username, Subscription Plan and email address at firstname.lastname@example.org for details or Whatsapp on
0302 555 68 02
Rs. 3500 for 1 year.