"Because the US constitution is written and codified it is superior to the UK constitution" Do you agree?.
The American people made the conscious decision that they didn"t want an evolved constitution held together by traditions and statute law, like they had witnessed in England. They sought something better and came up with a codified constitution. One question remains; is the US constitution the improvement that they sought?.
One clear difference between the two constitutions is the fact that one is codified and the other isn"t. There are implications regarding the flexibility of the constitutions according to whether or not they are codified. The English constitution is flexible in the sense that there are no special majorities or arrangements needed to change the constitution, it can be done via the normal legislative process. In direct contrast to this the American constitution is rigid, it is entrenched against the whims of subsequent government who may want to change it, as it requires a substantial majority to make any amendments.
With theses varying degrees of flexibility come both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the US constitution being entrenched are that it is clearly outlined and it cannot be subject to abuse. The strength of the UK constitution is in its flexibility the fact that it is evolved and has been able to change with the circumstances, for example the recent devolution in both Scotland and Wales. However such an crucial strength comes an equally important weakness, the fact that the constitution is not entrench and can be changed so easily leaves it vulnerable to abuse. Having said that though realistically no government is going to make constitutional changes without the backing of the political nation in the knowledge that they have to face re-election within five years. The government also have to get majority support in the house of commons which may not be as fourth coming from MP's who know their constituents are against such changes.