The argument that parliamentary sovereignty would be abolished by having a written constitution is intended to suggest that this would be a bad thing. In fact, parliament is not sovereign de facto; the executive is. As the executive is drawn from the majority in parliament, the whipping system of party discipline means that the executive is guaranteed to get its way, its party's members serving as lobby fodder to that end, in violation of the explicit duty of MPs to put the interests of their constituents and the country before all else – including before their party's interests.
They always seek merely a starting point and consequently provide a skeleton to be clothed with flesh, by customs, exigencies, national emergencies, economic developments, and various other factors affecting the welfare, of the nation. Written constitutions, Bryce remarks, become “developed by interpretation, fringed with decisions, and enlarged by customs so that after a time the letter of their text no longer conveys their full effect. ” The constitution remains a printed document, no doubt, but explained by judicial decisions, precedents and practices and illuminated by understandings and aspirations. Need essay sample on "Difference Between a Written and Unwritten Constitution" ? We will write a cheap essay sample on "Difference Between a Written and Unwritten Constitution" specifically for you for only $/page Order now