Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments in the above extracts regarding the need for a codified constitution in the UK. Extract 1 focuses on the fact that the UK is one of only a few democracies in the world which lacks a codified constitution. It also talks about the benefits of a codified constitution, highlighting its ability to provide clarity, protect rights, and limit government power. The author of Extract 1 is correct in saying that “the UK is unusual in not having the constitution codified in a single document” as only six other countries structure their constitution this way: San Marino, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Canada, China, and New Zealand. The US Constitution’s single document makes it generally clever for citizens to understand their rights and the government’s powers. This is in contrast to the UK’s scattered constitution which is more complex, often requiring citizens to hire solicitors to understand their rights and the government’s powers and responsibilities. An example of this is when a woman named Norma McCorvey wanted to have an abortion in Texas where she lived; however it was illegal to do so in Texas resulting in her arguing that the US’s codified constitution specifically stated she had the legal right to an abortion. This is an example where a codified constitution outlining all civil rights made it clearer for citizens to know those rights. The right to an abortion is a legal right within England, Wales and Scotland under the abortion act 1967 despite not having a codified constitution. Extract 2 presents various arguments against a codified constitution, emphasising flexibility and adaptability of the UK’s current system; implying that the UK’s existing constitutional arrangements, while imperfect, have served the country well. An example of this is the Dunblane School Massacre in 1996 (the first recorded school shooting in UK history) which led to significant constitutional changes including the passing of two key firearms acts: the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. This shows not having a codified constitution allowed the UK government to significantly change the UK’s constitution within 450 days. When you compare this with the USA which has a codified constitution stating each citizens right to bear arms despite school shootings having been recorded as far back as 1891 and a total of 574 between 2000 and 2023 and yet still no change to the constitution to due a complex complex and time consuming process backs the author of Extract 2’s point. Extract 2 also argues that a codified constitution could limit parliamentary sovereignty, which is the principle that parliament is the supreme law-making body. This allows for swift legislative action when needed (such as in the case of the Dunblane School Massacre) without a superior body such as the supreme court striking it down like what the US Supreme Court does to US federal and state laws. Based on the evidence, it is clear there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument in both extracts about whether the UK should have a codified constitution. Extract 1 made the point that it would make everything clearer and better protect everyone’s rights. On the contrary, Extract 2 made the argument that codifying the constitution would stop the UK from changing and adapting as easily as the existing system allows, and that it would weaken parliamentary sovereignty and simultaneously give judges too much power. To sum up, both extracts offer compelling points, with the desire for greater clarity and protected rights highlighted in Extract 1 being understandable and the inability to ignore Extract 2’s emphasis on the UK’s existing flexible and adaptable constitution. As such it is likely that if any government did decide to attempt to change the UK constitution they would have to look at these arguments.