LAW REVIEW ARTICLE

The UK is one of the few developed countries in the world without a written constitution. Despite this, its economy is prospering as it strengthens its position as one of the richest nations in the world. On top of that, it is pivotally located within the European federal framework in spite of its comparatively small geographic land mass and population. This raises an obvious question as to the mechanisms of governance: if there isn’t a constitution, how has the UK survived in this form, and how can it continue to prosper in a modern era without any distinct definitively specified legal order?

The United Kingdom is unlike most other nations in the world in that it has not suffered any major constitutional change since the Middle Ages. Since that time, it has been predominantly governed by a monarch in conjunction with his or her parliament. That said, it has proven to be of continuing success throughout the ages without the strict written form that many countries have adopted. From this has sprung an unprecedented flexibility, and the UK has effectively developed its own (non-binding) constitutional conventions to keep the country running smoothly. Additionally, the bi-cameral (or dual chamber) parliament plus the necessary monarchical ratification serves to provide a comprehensive set of checks and balances which would otherwise be provided through a written constitution.

The statement that the UK is lacking a constitution is misleading. Of course there is no written document, but the UK has a rich and diverse legal tapestry that works fluidly and has so for centuries. This fluidity has allowed for adaptation when necessary, and has allowed the UK to flourish and develop where others didn’t have the chance. Behind the scenes is an equally strict and wrought-iron code of conduct, which can partially be derived from codes of practices, Acts of Parliament and other ‘bits and pieces’. Although there may not be a constitution present in the sense of a single definitive document, the UK most certainly operates on the foundation of a constitution that keeps the country running smoothly on a daily basis.

A major aspect of the UK constitution is the thorough legislative process required for legal enactment. Any bill must firstly be proposed to the House of Commons, an elected body of representatives empowered with the power of legislative initiative. The first chamber proposes legislation and debates the provisions in depth, before agreeing on a final draft to pass to the second chamber, known as the House of Lords. The House of Lords are largely un-elected, with ‘membership’ passed down from generation to generation, or new members proposed by the House of Commons. They then have the right of veto, and an ability to refer back to the first chamber their proposed changes to any bills. This ensures no rushed legislation passes, and in theory should cover all eventualities. After passing both Houses, it is referred to the monarch, who has a personal responsibility to ensure any legislation is in accordance with the will of the people, and is morally justified. Although the monarch hasn’t used her power of veto since the 17th century, it is still an important constitutional safeguard in the UK.

The UK constitution might not seem obvious initially, but there is most certainly an intricate web of governance and practice lying underneath its blank exterior. It has been described as the most successful constitution in the world, and this is bolstered by its perpetual success and lack of problems since its early evolution.

After much deliberation and discussion, the Supreme Court has returned a critical strike to the core of women’s rights in the abortion arena. The court in a 5-4 decision banned a medical procedure known as a partial-birth abortion or Dilation and Extraction. This abortion procedure was performed after the 20th week of pregnancy. While the pro-rights crowd is naturally upset over the ban, they are horrified over the fact that there are no exceptions to the ban that would enable a doctor to save the life of a woman if it was medically necessary to perform the procedure.

Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well. The decision came from a split Supreme Court, with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself. This is a cause of great concern, suggesting that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader level. The Supreme Court’s involvement in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is clear where certain allegiances lie.

Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical decision can or cannot be performed? The anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to abortions. How will this decision be regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come around? What about the midterm elections next time they are scheduled?

Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge’s who are following Bush’s wishes and desires in regards to the case. The case was sitting before a panel of judge’s who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration.

The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide. There is a difference between killing a child, or an infant, and an abortion. One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the lungs. An abortion does not allow the infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant from their being.

While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to continue to term for medical reasons. There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their own life. What has the Supreme Court done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?

With the high rise in the number of sex offenders who are also repeated offenders the federal government decided to impose laws requiring all convicted sexual offenders to register with the states in which they live. Although this measure is controversial, government officials are claiming that it is an increasingly effective method of avoiding re-offending in some of the most serious criminals. Is this an invasion of privacy that the states and politicians have imposed upon someone who has served their sentence, or is this a legitimate measure of control for some of society’s most dangerous offenders?

At some point in time, it became acceptable for the government to track former criminals; in requiring them to register as an offender, they are essentially tracking the criminal. They do nothing more than monitor closely their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc. How this came to be is quite scary, while it has occurred for a crime that fits the punishment, after all our children should be protected. It also comes with a price. Many people see this as an intense invasion of privacy and human rights, and in Europe under the banner of the European Convention on Human Rights, such procedures would almost certainly not be allowed.

Since beginning this and requiring that all sexual offenders register with their respective states, it opens the door for criminals of other crimes to be required to register. Once that occurs, it allows the governments to start requiring slowly that everyone be registered for one reason or another. Is this something that the people are willing to let happen? Should the government have full knowledge and control over where you go, who your friends are and where you work?

Many feel that the laws for the sexual offenders are not stiff enough; they call for stricter punishments and heavier penalties for these most despicable of criminals. This comes from the side of people that wish to seek nothing more than revenge. At the same time, if someone commits a crime whom is sent for mental help, instead of jail they are not required to register. Their offenses are recorded differently, and their punishment is much easier.

This can cause serious problems in terms of people not being registered that really should be registered as an offender. The main goal of the program is to protect the interest of the children; after all, they are the main resource worth protecting in society. Nevertheless, how far is too far? Some have suggested implanting the offenders with a microchip that would enable law enforcement agencies to track the offenders’ movements continuously. Is this something that the American public is willing to accept?

With this being talked about, what are the chances of this occurring for other crimes as well? What is the point of releasing someone from the judicial system if they are so dangerous that they must be continuously tracked? As a woman, or a child how safe do you feel knowing that there are people surrounding you whom have been convicted of serious crimes against others? What about as a man, does this change your opinion? The requirement for registration causes social problems and victimization for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who have shown themselves to be dangerous. This has the knock on effect of altering the course of justice, given that these people will have served the appropriate sentence for their crime, and hopefully have progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.

How do you think it should be handled? There are some people who truly believe that the registrations processes should be removed, that once their time is served the offenders should be allowed to disappear back into the woodwork and free to live their lives without being under the public scrutiny. These are the people who are looking to have yet another law changed, that could have some very devastating effects on society, particularly for our children in the coming generations.

There is a bill in the progress before the House of Representatives that is trying to put the issue of the pay and compensation package that executives of publicly traded companies receive in front of stockholders. This bill is actually expected to pass through the house successfully; however, it is unclear how well the Senate will receive it. Is this bill the right direction for a modern America, or do we need to consider more intimately the economic implications of such a decision?

The White House has already formally registered its opposition to such a plan, however the backers are unconcerned. Many feel that the compensation plans of the major officers of the publicly traded companies should be tied to the performance of the company and the officers themselves, and not to the figures that the officers wish to receive.

This bill if passed could place an enormous amount of power into the hands of stockholders who are upset with the way several companies have behaved lately, with declining profits and horrible business practices while the officers of the companies have picked up large compensation packages that include their salary, benefits, and stock options. Each officer can end up with hundreds if not thousands in profits even while the company is performing badly, which stockholders believe is an inequitable outcome.

Many have wondered if the officers in charge of these companies would tighten the belts on spending if their own pay was tied to their performance rather than their wishes, and with numerous companies falling short of profits with huge pay packages going out, and raises occurring almost yearly many investors have started complaining loudly.

While current President Bush has urged the officers of the companies to step up and take responsibility. He has also said that it is not an issue that the government should become involved in. How far should the government extend into a private business? How many people would really feel comfortable with the idea of having the government determine what their pay could be? Most Americans can agree that they would not like the idea of the government interfering with their job and pays.

At the same time, while most Americans do not wish to have the government intruding into their jobs and careers, many still want some measures put into place to hold the executives accountable who are responsible for multi-million and multi-billion companies that employ hundreds to thousands of people.

Many have argued that the concept is nothing new; it is similar to ideas that are currently in place in countries such as Sweden, Australia and even in Britain. With examples such as those to follow, it makes people wonder if this actually does have the chance to pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate once the voting time has arrived.

With time as the key factor, there is scheduled to be a vote on the issue in the House of Representatives in the very near future, which is very much expected to pass without much opposition. It is the next step in the Senate that is where it starts getting sticky with people unsure of the results once the voting in the Senate starts. However, with increasing support from the people, many of whom work for companies affected by this issue, there is scope for a mass political influence, which will certainly make the outcome interesting.

In the days following the 9/11 attacks there have been many changes in the organization and how the government handles the flow of people coming into the country. The INS was first started as the organization that was responsible for handing the people who were applying for citizenship and residency. INS stands for Immigration and Naturalization Service, the organization charged with respecting the safety of the USA.

The INS is now responsible for many tasks that it never had before, including inspecting travelers who are entering and exiting the United States gates through more than 300 points of entry nationwide. Whether you are coming or going from the United States, you are likely to be passing through an INS worker who is responsible for helping make sure anyone who is wanted by the law is not able to gain entry to the country. Although largely a precaution, it is thought that this will be most helpful in preventing possible threats to national security.

Other tasks of the INS include handling the residence status of all who apply for residence and citizenship. They also handle and seek to regulate the status of all permanent and temporary immigration requests. The INS. also handles tourists, and students, as well as those coming for conventions, special classes, visiting family and all other business.

The INS has also been given the tasks of controlling all of the borders into the United States, especially the borders between Mexico and the United States and Canada and the United States. This is an extremely large task since the United States shares such large land borders with two other countries. This allows for an almost daily flow of people trying to enter the country illegally.

INS workers are also responsible for handling and removing all people who have no legal rights to be in this country. They are responsible for removing the parties in accordance with the laws, and by following all of the standards that are set in place for obtaining temporary status, or returning the person to the country where they came from.

In a report the INS released in 2001, there was 31,971 employees on staff. This resulted in a rate of 24,233 of these employees being classified as enforcement personal were used to enforce the laws, rulings and policies of this country. The INS today is a function of the Justice Department and serves mostly as an investigative unit, unlike many other departments, which serve as law enforcement units instead.

In recent years, the borders have had more illegal entry than previously, which has resulted in larger amounts of staff being added to help secure the borders and protect our country. Without being able to know who is entering our country, we are unable to truly protect our citizens and other people. Border patrol agents is the one largest area where the INS has seen growth in jobs available. Due to the increase of jobs in the border patrol, we are able to see much fewer illegal entries into the country.

As we progress into a country that is, more accommodating of people from various cultures it will be quite interesting to see how the INS is changed to adapt and become more friendly to the needs of all people, even those entering the country.