A 'Projected Grade' is an estimate of the final grade you might receive if the full essay is completed in the same style as the work assessed.
This highlight shows analysis of View A (Professor Reed).
This highlight shows analysis of View B (Dr. Croft).
This highlight shows your own Evaluation, where you weigh the views or make a judgment.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Dr Julian More as you he states good facts of why is the why he disagrees with the question. For example he say's 'key rules and citizens rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws'. This is not good as it's most likely not taken seriously and also makes it inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true limits of the goverment power. Although Professor Evelyn Reed says yes but not once does she talk about any negative impacts that come with these circumstances. This tells us that not everything is good as it sounds and we don't know what kind of impact this could cause on the public. Another reason why I agree with croft is because he talks about the risks that could happen. For example he says 'the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, far from being a strength, creates the risk of an elective dictatorship'. This supports my point because let's say there was a large goverment with large majority - they can pass almost any laws they choose, which means your problem wouldn't be solved.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with writer A, this is (Professor Evelyn Reed) this is because writer A has more clearer evidence and confirmed/validated laws to back up his statements. For example writer A talks about many reasons why the unwritten constitution is fit for purpose such as when says they says comparess the United Kingdom's to government and how stable it is to other governments that are codified and are hard to pass/change laws. writer A also talks about the history of the United Kingdom (UK) and the events that it went through such as the magna carter and modern parlimentary acts. However others may disagree with my opinion (such as Dr. Julian Croft) (writer B) as they believe that the UK's unwritten constitution was not fit for its purpose due to it barley having any serious checks and balances and the risk could be that there would be an elective dictator becoming an issue in the near future.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
At an extent, I Agree with this writer. Because, he describes the pros of unwritten consitution which he is being quite accurate about, this has alot of benefits, and he scructered it very well. Reed has also expanded his point on the reasoning why the united kingdon's consitution fit for purpose, its an mature effective system, it can change without the consitutional. We can be able to choose on who represent's us. there is very high security included, which ensures that there is checks and balances taking place. Here, there is an great vadility of laws included. Alongside it has loads of power aswell.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed (ER). This is because he is able to explain in detail the UK's unwritten constitution. For example he says that the system can evolve organically and meet challenges like statute law, common law, and convention which is adapted from Magna Centa to modern acts of Parliament. However what (ER) forgot to mention was how the constitution affects citizens or members of the public. Julian Croft (JC) mentions that 'key rules and citizens rights are scattered across a bunch of different laws'. This could be said as the law might need a written singular constitution. He further explains this by saying it creates a risk of an 'elective dictatorship' by having an unwritten constitution.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Professor Evelyn more because her points are very strong and valid. Like when she implies "the ability to change without constitutional crises is a sign of a mature and effective system". I believe this is a strong point because it means the UK is organised and knows what they are doing in the process. Another statement I strongly agree on is when (PE) states "our constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power". This is because it shows the UK is organised and makes sure noone is getting more power than they need/supposed to. On the other hand I strongly dissagree with Dr. Julian Croft when he says "the existing checks and balances are too week". This is because without these checks and balances the laws wouldn't be thouroughly observed meaning there could be errors, etc. I also strongly disagree with him when he implies "A modern democracy deserves a single, clear, written constitution" because this then means the UK has to rely on a written constitution which tells them what rules they should follow.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with prosessor Evelyn Reed more because she talks about how the constitution provides a framework for governence is both remarkabley flexible. Another ppoint Prossessor Evelyn (PE) makes is that our constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. this is a strong point because it ensures everyone is treated fairly. The consitution also mentions how the courts hold the government to account through judical review - this is another strong point as judical review ensures public bodies act lawfully and fairly. I disagree less with Julian Croft because even though he states a codified constitution with an entrenched Bill is desperately needed to provide stronger safeguard for citizen rights, a codified constitution is difficult to change and the system can evolve organically to meet new challenges.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more on Professor Evelyn Reed perspective because he say a unwritten constitution is one of the UK greatest strengths. The strength with this argument is it creates stable and remarkable flexible. unlike rigid, codified constitution so that are diffcult to change. However the flaws with this argument is it creates the risks of an 'elective distatorship'. A government with large majority can pass almost any law it chooses. Further more in professor Evelyn Reed perspective he says its a dynamic mix of status law, common law, and convention. The strength with this argument is legislation can passed quickly in response to new issues in society. In my conclusion I think both professor and Julian argument where very credible but Julian's points are real strength strong. For example he says an a single, clear, written constitution can be read and understand which can allow citizen to understand their right.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with Dr Julian Croft. This is because he provides a valid reason on why the constitution is unfit for its purpose. Such as the sect that its greater weakness is it lacks clarity. This is a problem because it creates uncertanty about the true power and limitations of the government. This may bring about constict for civillians as new rules can often be passed despite checks and balances just because it has a large majority. This is known as elective dictatorship. What he fails to mension is the constitution not being written allows for adaptive-bilities within the law which is important due to the ever-evolving world we live in. However, Evelyn Reed also provides strong statistical evidence such as the sact that our system can evolve organically to adapt to changes in our country. This is good evidence but she fails to provide a downside to her point such as it could be hard to determine.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more to Professor Evelyne (PE). This is because (PE) talks about how the unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths as it provides a framework for governance that is both stable and remarkable flexible. For example for a large bill to be turned into a law it may go through a couple of steps. Another strength is how we be able to change the constitution without causing a crisis or slow the operations of our system. This is further evidence to parliamentary soverignty which allows the elected house of commins to hold legal authority, ensuring pow lies with people representative. A lot more of a democratic arrangement... I agree with Julian Croft (JC) less due to him being less persuasive. This is further evident when he stated how it is a 'relic of the past that is dangerous'. He says the UK constitution is 'a jumble across differnt laws'. He also states how a party having a large majority it can lead to elective dictatorship. Yet he has no checks and balances in place to disallow circumstances such as these, showing the weaknesses in his points. Ultimately, I agree more with (PE) as the good argumentative beliefs is backed by facts and statistics such as judicial reviews and checks and balances.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Julian Croft as he mention's how the UK's unwritten constitution is 'dangerously unfit for the modern world'. The reason I agree with this point is because their are several examples of how it dosent fit the modern world. For example the a minority of the UK is politically illiterate. This point also back's up Julian Croft's point of how the UK constitution "lack's clarity" as a major point of the UKs population being politaclly iliturate is a majority of people don't know where to start learning about polotic's and not being able to access the constition is a big problem. On the other hand I dissagree with Evelyn Reed's as Julian croft mentions how "The principle of parliment soverienty... create's a risk of elective dictatorship" whereas Eelyn reed say's that 'power ultimately lies with the peoples representative" but this point is weak as he fail's to explain how the power remains with the executive strengthening Julian Croft's point and weakling his point. Furthermore he constantly mention's the "flexbebility" but this could mean that lawes are not properly checked when being made.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Everlyn Reed (ER) to a large extent. This is due to the fact that our unwritten constitution is very democratic. ER proves this by saying "courts hold the government to account in judicial review". This proves our unwritten constitution is democratic because it ensures public institutions act fairly. This argument is very strong because it takes an example from a system that is commonly used which makes it easy to understand. Furthermore, you can evidently see the professors profound knowledge and political literacy as she is aware that the government can be hold to account. Because of all those reasons, I agree with ER to a large extent because her points are accurate and understandable.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with Evelyn Reed as he makes great points on why its a good decision for an unwritten constitution. For example (Reed's) makes a strong point on how this unwritten constitution allows for flexibility, strength and prevents abuse of power. And also says that it allows the power to stay with the people. This makes for a very strong point as it would be easier to hold the government to acount. This is good as it allows for no extremist able to get much power. I agree less with Julia Croft as her argument does not hold enough weight. For example she believes that a written constitution will make the public feel more certain about the true power of the government. That is a good thing but an unwritten constitution allows for more change in rules but more ways for robust checks and balances. She also claims there is a greater chance for a dictatorship to come to power. which is slightly stronger however this is even more unlikely as the unwritten constitution would be made up of common laws and conventions.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree slightly more with Professor Evelyn Reed this is because he states that having an unwritten constitution would be more dynamic. This is shown when Evelyn reed says an unwritten constitution are a dyanmic mix of statue law common law and convention that has been and can be adapted over centuries. This highlights a strength to this point as unlike the rigid codified structure of a constitution an unwritten constitution is unwritten and uncodified meaning that changes can be made alot easier in an unwritten constitution than a written one. However Julian crofts point can also be viewed as a strong point because unwritten constitutions can be very puzzling. This is supported by Julian crofts statement that a weakness with an unwritten constitution has a lack of clarity whereas a constitution clearly states the rules. This shows a strength in Julian crofts point as unwritten constitutions have been evidenced to increase 'public uncertainty about the limits of goverment power' as citizens key rights and rules would be inaccessible to them as they are not stated due to the constitution being unwritten.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed this is because even though the constitution is codified the consitution is usefl because it change every time people in society. I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed this is because she says that it is flexible this point is supported by society need that the change to adopt to society's changes this help because it will change to help better society. The constitution has help for over centurys and help to change to help better society and also keep the government responsible for what they did. Also the constitution help keep society in check. It also combie the tradition and new changes in society and is people find it fair they can use judical review if people don't like the new result.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with. Proffesor Evelyn Reed, because she believes that our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges. However it is a dynamic mix of stante law, common law & convention that has adapted over centuries. I believe the point she made is a strong point because she is also raising the citizens protection and safety into account this is shown by when she says 'commities act as powerful watch dogs'. Dr. Julian croft is right but he isnt because he says that 'The UK's "so called" unwritten constitution is a relic of the past and that is dangerously unfit for the modern world'. But I dissagree with this statement because when he said. 'A government with a large majority can pass through any law'. Just because its a big government not neccesarily it can cause things... Reed, says this combination of tradition and flexibility and accountability has served the cause well and I agree...
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with proffessor Evelyn Reed (ER) how the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose as it provides stability and the power to fix, while Julian croft's arguement is weak as it does not provide a strong arguement. ER states how "our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges" as it is unwritten and can be changed anytime, which is a strong point than JC who believes it can cause "inaccessibilty to the public", which is a weak arguement. In order to back up the idea of the unwritten constitution as a symbol of stability, ER states how its adapting from "Magna Carta to modern parliamentary acts" portrays maturity of the country. This is a valid arguement as it shows how the UK was able to update its laws and convention effeciently, unlike America who's unelected judges have the final says on the validity of laws, which contrasts to the UKs stable judicial reviews. Futhermore, JC believes that the UKs unwritten constituition portrays them as 'unfit for modern world'. This is clearly wrong as we know that the UKs statute law, common law, and convention are constantly updating, which challenges JC's arguement. JC also states how the country is at risk of 'elective dictatorship'. This is a rather invalid arguement as JC forgot to mention how the UK parliament has checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power, which justify's EERs point. In conclusion, I agree more with ER's arguement... as there are checks and balances which stops the abuse of power and is far more effecient for parliament when adding new laws.