UK and US Constitutions | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 1 day ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 55 to 70 minutes
The UK and US Constitutions organise political power in very different ways. This UK and US Constitutions A-Level Politics revision page compares their nature, sources, provisions and principles, before examining US federalism alongside UK devolution. It also shows how the rational, cultural and structural approaches can explain these similarities and differences. This lesson builds directly on comparative theory and brings together knowledge from both UK Government and Government and Politics of the USA.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Compare the codified and entrenched US Constitution with the uncodified and unentrenched UK Constitution.
Explain similarities and differences in the sources, provisions and principles of the two constitutions.
Analyse the consequences of separation of powers in the USA and fusion of powers in the UK.
Compare the US federal system with UK devolution.
Explain differences in sovereignty, entrenchment and symmetry between federalism and devolution.
Apply rational, cultural and structural approaches to account for constitutional similarities and differences.
Revision Notes đź“š
What does the specification require?
For comparative politics, Edexcel requires you to compare and debate the UK and US Constitutions and their impact on politics and government.
You need to understand:
their nature, including whether they are codified or uncodified
their sources
their provisions
their principles, including separation of powers and checks and balances
similarities and differences between US federalism and UK devolution
the extent to which rational, cultural and structural approaches explain these similarities and differences
This means you need to do more than describe each constitution separately. You must make direct comparisons and explain the consequences of those differences.
Your prior study of constitutional design in the USA provides the American side of this comparison, while comparative approaches provide the theories needed to explain why the systems differ.
What is a constitution?
A constitution is the set of rules and principles governing the political system.
Constitutions determine matters such as:
where political power is located
how institutions relate to each other
the powers and limitations of government
how political authority is distributed
how rights are protected
Both the UK and USA have constitutions, but the nature and organisation of those constitutions differ significantly.
Comparing the nature of the UK and US Constitutions
The clearest distinction is between the codified and entrenched US Constitution and the uncodified and unentrenched UK Constitution.
Feature | USA | UK | Political consequence |
Codification | Codified | Uncodified | US constitutional rules are concentrated in a single constitutional document, while UK rules come from a range of sources |
Entrenchment | Formally entrenched | Unentrenched | The US Constitution is more difficult to amend, while the UK Constitution is more flexible |
Form of state | Federal | Unitary, although substantially devolved | US states possess constitutionally protected powers, while UK devolved power exists within a unitary constitutional framework |
Distribution of powers | Separation of powers | Fusion of powers | US branches operate more independently, while the UK executive and legislature are more closely connected |
Sovereignty | Shared between federal and state levels within the federal system | Parliamentary sovereignty remains central | Devolved powers do not have the same constitutional status as the powers of US states |
The 2025 mark scheme identifies codification, entrenchment, separation of powers and the federal-unitary distinction as central constitutional comparisons.
Codified and uncodified constitutions
A codified constitution brings the principal constitutional rules together within a single authoritative constitutional document.
The US Constitution is therefore codified.
The UK Constitution is uncodified. Its constitutional rules are drawn from several different sources rather than being contained in one constitutional document.
⚠️ Uncodified does not mean unwritten.
A large amount of the UK Constitution is written down, particularly in Acts of Parliament. The important distinction is that these rules are not brought together within one codified constitutional document.
This difference is repeatedly identified by examiners as an important distinction. The 2025 examiner report specifically noted that weaker candidates incorrectly described the UK Constitution as completely unwritten.
Entrenched and unentrenched constitutions
The US Constitution is entrenched, meaning that constitutional rules cannot normally be changed through the same process as ordinary legislation.
Formal constitutional amendment therefore requires a more demanding process than ordinary law-making.
For example, one method requires approval by:
two-thirds of both Houses of Congress
three-quarters of the states
This makes formal constitutional change difficult.
The UK Constitution is unentrenched. Constitutional change can occur through methods including ordinary statute law.
This creates an important contrast:
US Constitution → entrenched → more difficult to amend → greater constitutional rigidity
UK Constitution → unentrenched → easier to change → greater constitutional flexibility
This comparison links directly to your previous study of formal constitutional changex.
Constitutional vagueness and flexibility
Although the US Constitution is codified, it is also deliberately or necessarily vague in some areas. The specification requires students to understand vagueness as part of the Constitution's nature.
Codification therefore does not mean that every political situation is precisely settled by the text.
The UK achieves adaptability differently. Because constitutional rules come from multiple sources and are not formally entrenched, constitutional arrangements can develop without a formal amendment process equivalent to that of the USA.
The two systems can therefore both adapt, but they do so in different constitutional ways.
Comparing constitutional sources
The differences become even clearer when considering where constitutional rules come from.
Sources of the UK Constitution
The specification identifies five main sources.
1. Statute law
Statute law consists of laws passed by Parliament.
Important constitutional statutes within the specification include:
Magna Carta 1215
Bill of Rights 1689
Act of Settlement 1701
Acts of Union 1707
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
Human Rights Act 1998
legislation establishing and developing devolution
Statute is especially important because of parliamentary sovereignty.
2. Common law
Common law consists of legal principles that have developed through decisions made by judges.
It therefore contributes to the constitutional rules governing the political system.
3. Conventions
Conventions are accepted political practices that are normally followed even though they do not have the same legal status as statute.
They are particularly important in the uncodified UK constitutional system.
4. Authoritative works
Authoritative works are recognised constitutional texts that help explain constitutional practices and principles.
5. Treaties
Treaties can also contribute to the constitutional arrangements of the UK.
These five sources demonstrate why describing the UK Constitution as simply "unwritten" is inaccurate.
Sources of the US Constitution
The US system is much more concentrated.
Its constitutional framework is located in the codified US Constitution, together with its constitutional amendments.
This includes the Bill of Rights, which forms part of the constitutional framework protecting rights.
The contrast is therefore:
USA:Â a codified constitutional document and amendments
UK:Â statute law + common law + conventions + authoritative works + treaties
This is a major structural difference because the organisation of constitutional rules affects how easily they can be identified and changed.
Similarities in constitutional sources
Despite the major difference between codification and non-codification, the constitutions are not complete opposites.
Both countries have substantial written constitutional rules.
The difference is how those written rules are organised.
In the USA, constitutional rules are centred upon a codified and entrenched constitutional document.
In the UK, written constitutional rules are dispersed across statute and other sources alongside non-statutory constitutional rules.
This distinction is much stronger in an examination than simply writing:
The USA has a written constitution and the UK has an unwritten one.
That wording is inaccurate because the UK Constitution contains extensive written material.
Constitutional provisions
A constitutional provision is a rule or arrangement establishing political powers, rights or procedures.
The two constitutions differ considerably in how explicitly these provisions are set out.
Powers of government
The US Constitution explicitly establishes the constitutional framework for the principal branches of government.
This includes powers and limitations relating to:
Congress
the presidency
the Supreme Court
By contrast, the UK Constitution does not always explicitly set out the powers of political institutions within one document.
Those powers may instead derive from different constitutional sources.
This difference affects the clarity and enforceability of constitutional limits.
The 2025 mark scheme states that the US Constitution explicitly outlines powers and limitations on the branches, whereas this is not always explicitly written down in the UK system.
Your study of these arrangements continues when you compare legislative institutions.
Rights
Rights also illustrate the different constitutional structures.
The US Constitution contains a specific Bill of Rights as part of its constitutional arrangements.
Because those rights are constitutionally entrenched, altering them is more difficult than changing ordinary legislation.
In the UK, rights are protected through constitutional sources including statute and common law rather than through an equivalent entrenched constitutional Bill of Rights.
The Human Rights Act 1998Â is an important example of statute law protecting rights.
⚠️ Be precise here.
The UK does have the historic Bill of Rights 1689, which is one of the specification's important constitutional documents. However, the UK does not possess an entrenched constitutional Bill of Rights equivalent to the US Bill of Rights.
Examiners have repeatedly identified confusion about this distinction.
Comparing constitutional principles
A constitutional principle is a fundamental rule or idea underpinning how political power should operate.
Several principles produce major differences between the UK and US political systems.
Separation of powers and fusion of powers
The US Constitution is based upon separation of powers.
The legislative, executive and judicial branches are institutionally separate.
This means that:
Congress forms the legislature
the president heads the executive
the Supreme Court forms the highest judicial branch
Each branch possesses its own constitutional role.
The UK is characterised more by fusion of powers, particularly between the executive and legislature.
The government is drawn from Parliament, so executive and legislative personnel overlap.
The constitutional consequence is important.
USA | UK |
Separation of powers | Fusion of powers |
Greater institutional independence between branches | Greater overlap between executive and legislature |
Cooperation between separate branches is often required | Government may exercise substantial influence within Parliament |
Constitutional powers of branches are explicitly outlined | Powers are derived from several constitutional sources |
This comparison is central to constitutional principles.
Checks and balances
Checks and balances are mechanisms allowing political institutions to limit or scrutinise the power of other institutions.
Both systems contain checks on political power, so this is an important similarity.
The difference is in their constitutional basis.
In the USA, checks and balances are closely connected to the codified Constitution and separation of powers.
In the UK, checks and balances operate within an uncodified constitution and a system with greater fusion of powers.
The 2025 mark scheme suggests that US checks and balances are more constitutionally enforceable because they are embedded within an entrenched constitutional framework, while UK checks may rely more heavily on constitutional practices and arrangements that are easier to alter.
Parliamentary sovereignty
One of the two key pillars of the UK Constitution specified by Edexcel is parliamentary sovereignty.
This means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority within the UK constitutional system.
The principle helps explain several major differences from the USA.
Because Parliament remains legally sovereign:
constitutional statutes are not formally entrenched in the same way as the US Constitution
Parliament can change constitutional arrangements through legislation
devolved institutions do not possess sovereignty equivalent to US states within the federal system
Parliamentary sovereignty is therefore fundamental when comparing devolution with federalism.
Rule of law
The second UK constitutional pillar specified by Edexcel is the rule of law.
The rule of law establishes that government operates according to law.
Together, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law form the two constitutional principles specifically identified in the UK Government specification.
Limited government in the USA
The US Constitution is designed around limited government.
Government institutions are restricted through constitutional rules, separation of powers, federalism and checks and balances.
This contrasts with a UK system in which Parliament remains legally sovereign.
However, both constitutions seek to establish rules governing how political authority is exercised.
The difference lies in the constitutional mechanism used to achieve this.
A summary comparison of the two constitutions
Area | USA | UK |
Nature | Codified | Uncodified |
Entrenchment | Entrenched | Unentrenched |
Main source | Single constitutional document and amendments | Five main sources |
Rights | Entrenched constitutional Bill of Rights | Rights protected through sources including statute and common law |
Executive-legislative relationship | Separation of powers | Fusion of powers |
Checks and balances | Explicitly connected to constitutional separation of powers | Operate within an uncodified system with greater fusion |
Territorial organisation | Federal | Unitary with devolution |
Sovereignty | Divided within the federal system | Parliamentary sovereignty |
Flexibility | Relatively rigid formal amendment process | More flexible constitutional change |
The central point is not simply that the constitutions look different. Their different structures produce different political consequences.
US federalism and UK devolution
One of the most important comparisons in this lesson is between US federalism and UK devolution.
Both distribute political power territorially, but they do so in fundamentally different constitutional ways.
Understanding the American federal system is essential before making this comparison.
What is federalism?
Federalism divides political authority between central and regional levels of government.
In the USA, power is divided between:
federal government
state governments
Federalism is a founding principle of the US constitutional system and is entrenched within the Constitution.
This means that state government is not simply a creation of the federal government that can be abolished through ordinary federal legislation.
What is devolution?
Devolution transfers political powers from the central UK political system to devolved political institutions.
The specification requires knowledge of devolution in:
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
England
Modern devolution was developed through Acts of Parliament.
Unlike federalism, it operates within a constitution in which Parliament remains legally sovereign.
Similarities between federalism and devolution
There are some important similarities.
Both systems:
distribute political decision-making territorially
provide regional or state-level political institutions
allow decisions to be made below the national level
can produce different political decisions in different parts of the country
However, these broad similarities should not hide the major constitutional differences.
Difference 1: Constitutional origin
US federalism is one of the founding principles of the constitutional system.
Modern UK devolution developed much later and operates through legislation enacted by Parliament.
The 2024 mark scheme contrasts federalism as a founding principle with devolution introduced through modern constitutional reform.
This makes federalism a much more deeply embedded part of the formal constitutional structure.
Difference 2: Entrenchment
US federalism is constitutionally entrenched.
The powers of federal and state government have constitutional protection.
UK devolution is established through statute law.
Because the UK Constitution is unentrenched and Parliament remains sovereign, devolved powers do not possess the same formal constitutional protection as US state powers.
In principle, Parliament can:
alter devolved powers
expand devolution
change the territorial distribution of authority
This does not mean that altering devolution would necessarily be politically easy. The constitutional point is that the arrangements are not entrenched in the same way as American federalism.
Difference 3: Sovereignty
This is one of the strongest comparison points.
In the US federal system, constitutional authority is divided between the federal government and states.
In the UK, legal sovereignty remains with Parliament.
Devolved institutions exercise powers transferred to them, but they do not possess sovereignty equivalent to that of US states within the federal Constitution.
The contrast can be summarised as:
USA → federal division of constitutional power
UK → parliamentary sovereignty + devolved authority
This difference was identified by the 2024 examiner report as one of the strongest areas for comparative analysis.
Difference 4: Symmetry and asymmetry
US federalism is based upon constitutional equality between states.
Although states may make different political decisions, they occupy the same basic constitutional status within the federal system.
UK devolution is asymmetric.
This means that the powers and arrangements applying to different parts of the UK are not identical.
The experience of devolution therefore depends upon the particular part of the UK concerned.
This is a major structural difference.
US federalism | UK devolution |
States have equal constitutional status | Devolution is asymmetric |
Federalism applies across the USA | Devolved arrangements differ across the UK |
State powers are constitutionally protected | Devolved powers derive from legislation |
Federal principle is entrenched | Devolution can be altered through constitutional legislation |
Difference 5: Separation and fusion of powers
The difference between separation and fusion of powers also operates below the national level.
US state governments operate within the broader principle of separation of powers.
UK devolved systems have greater fusion between executive and legislature.
The comparison therefore reflects the wider constitutional difference between the two countries.
Difference 6: Permanence and flexibility
US federalism is a comparatively permanent constitutional feature because it is entrenched.
The balance of power between state and federal government can change, but the federal system itself remains constitutionally embedded.
UK devolution is more flexible.
The powers of devolved institutions can be expanded or changed through statute.
The 2024 mark scheme uses the development of further Scottish devolution following the 2014 independence referendum and the expansion of English devolution as examples of this greater flexibility.
Why the federalism-devolution comparison matters
This comparison demonstrates how constitutional form affects actual politics.
Because federalism is entrenched:
state powers have constitutional protection
disputes may arise about the boundary between state and federal authority
constitutional interpretation becomes important in resolving these disputes
Because devolution exists within a unitary and parliamentary-sovereign constitution:
devolved powers originate in Acts of Parliament
the distribution of power can change more flexibly
different parts of the UK can receive different levels of devolved authority
This is an excellent example of how constitutional structure creates political outcomes.
Applying the structural approach
The structural approach focuses on institutions and formal processes.
It is especially powerful when comparing the constitutions because many differences arise directly from formal constitutional arrangements.
Codification and entrenchment
A structural explanation might argue:
USA:Â the Constitution is codified and entrenched, so constitutional powers are organised within a formal document and changing them requires a demanding process.
UK:Â constitutional rules come from several sources and are unentrenched, allowing constitutional change to occur more flexibly.
The difference in political outcomes can therefore be explained by the different structures of the constitutions.
Federalism and devolution
The same theory applies to territorial government.
USA:Â federalism is entrenched in the Constitution.
UK:Â devolution is established through statute within an unentrenched constitution.
Therefore, US state powers possess greater formal constitutional protection, whereas UK devolution is structurally more flexible.
This is precisely the type of developed structural analysis rewarded by the mark schemes.
Applying the cultural approach
The cultural approach focuses on groups and shared beliefs, ideas and values.
The cultural approach can help explain why different constitutional arrangements are accepted and maintained.
Constitutional culture
In the USA, the Constitution occupies a central position within the political system. A cultural explanation can therefore emphasise the longstanding importance attached to the constitutional framework.
The relative rarity of formal amendment can be understood partly through the importance attached to the constitutional settlement.
In the UK, constitutional culture has traditionally accepted greater flexibility.
Constitutional arrangements can be altered as political circumstances change, without requiring the creation of a single entrenched constitutional document.
The 2025 mark scheme explicitly contrasts the US Constitution's position as the foundation of the political system with the UK's acceptance of a more flexible constitutional tradition.
Federalism and devolution
Cultural theory can also help explain territorial government.
In the USA, federalism has formed part of political life from the creation of the constitutional system.
In the UK, support for devolution has developed more recently and varies between different parts of the country.
This helps explain why US federalism is treated as a basic feature of the constitutional order, while debates about how much devolution different parts of the UK should possess continue.
Applying the rational approach
The rational approach focuses on individual political actors and the choices they make when pursuing outcomes they believe will benefit them.
It can help explain political behaviour operating within constitutional arrangements.
Federal-state relations
In the USA, political actors at state level can use constitutionally protected state powers to pursue policies they believe will produce desirable outcomes for their state.
Where state and federal political actors both seek control over an area of policy, conflict can arise over the constitutional location of authority.
The rational explanation focuses on why those political actors choose to defend or expand their authority.
Devolution
In the UK, political actors may demand further devolved power when they believe increased regional autonomy will produce a more beneficial political outcome.
The asymmetric nature of devolution can therefore contribute to demands for:
greater parity of powers
further devolution
in Scotland, independence
The 2024 mark scheme explicitly links rational theory to policy choices by US states and to demands arising from the asymmetric character of UK devolution.
Comparing the three approaches
The same constitutional difference can sometimes be interpreted through more than one approach.
Consider US federalism compared with UK devolution.
Structural explanation
Federalism is entrenched in the US Constitution, whereas devolution is established through UK statute law.
Focus:Â formal constitutional rules.
Cultural explanation
Federalism has long been embedded in American political culture, whereas attitudes towards devolution vary within the UK and have developed over time.
Focus:Â shared political ideas and values.
Rational explanation
State or devolved political actors may use or seek powers because they believe greater policy control or autonomy will produce a beneficial outcome.
Focus:Â choices made by political actors.
A high-quality answer does not merely label something "structural", "cultural" or "rational". It explains how the approach causes or accounts for the political difference.
Which comparative approach is strongest?
For constitutional questions, structural theory is often particularly easy to apply because codification, entrenchment, federalism, devolution, separation of powers and sovereignty all involve formal political arrangements.
However, this does not make cultural or rational theory irrelevant.
A stronger understanding recognises that:
structural factors determine the formal framework
cultural factors can explain why particular arrangements are accepted or valued
rational factors can explain how political actors behave within those arrangements
You should select the theory that most effectively explains the particular comparison you are making.
Building a comparative paragraph
For a Section B comparison, a useful structure is:
1. Identify a like-for-like comparison
For example:
entrenched federalism versus unentrenched devolution
2. Explain the US position
Federalism forms part of the entrenched US constitutional framework.
3. Compare the UK directly
By contrast, UK devolution exists through statute within an unentrenched constitution and under parliamentary sovereignty.
4. Explain the political consequence
US state powers therefore have stronger formal constitutional protection, while UK devolved arrangements can be altered more easily.
5. Integrate comparative theory
This can be explained structurally because the different constitutional rules governing territorial power create different levels of protection for regional institutions.
The theory has now been used to explain the comparison, rather than simply added as a label.
Connecting constitutional comparison to later study
The constitutional differences studied here affect almost every later comparison in Paper 3A.
For example:
separation and fusion of powers shape legislative powerÂ
constitutional differences affect the relative powers of executive leaders
codification and entrenchment affect the role of courts and rights
federalism influences representation, elections and political participation
This is why constitutional comparison is one of the foundations of the entire comparative politics course.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Make direct, like-for-like comparisons rather than writing one section on the USA followed by one section on the UK.
The 2021 examiner report found that the strongest answers compared specific constitutional factors directly and supported them with evidence from both countries. A historical narrative about the two constitutions was not what the question required.
Examiner hint:Â Comparative theory must be integrated into your explanation in Question 2.
The 2025 examiner report explains that a Section B response cannot access Level 4 without an integrated discussion of at least one comparative theory. Simply ending a paragraph with "this is structural" is insufficient.
A stronger approach is:
The difference can be explained structurally because federalism is protected by the entrenched US Constitution, whereas UK devolution derives from statute within an unentrenched constitution. The formal constitutional structures therefore give regional government different levels of protection.
Examiner hint:Â You do not need to use all three theories.
The 2025 examiner report confirms that one well-developed and properly integrated comparative theory point is sufficient to remove the theory-related Level 4 cap, provided the rest of the response is also strong.
Examiner hint:Â Compare factors that genuinely match.
The 2024 examiner report advises students to compare like with like. For federalism and devolution, strong areas included entrenchment, asymmetry and sovereignty.
Examiner hint:Â Develop the consequence of each constitutional difference.
Do not stop at:
The US Constitution is codified whereas the UK Constitution is uncodified.
Explain what follows:
As a result, US constitutional powers are located within a single entrenched framework, whereas UK constitutional arrangements can develop through several sources, making the UK system more flexible.
Examiner hint:Â Avoid lengthy introductions and conclusions in a 12-mark comparative question.
Both the 2024 and 2025 reports warn that these often use time without adding credit. Concentrate instead on several developed comparative points.
Examiner hint:Â Use accurate constitutional terminology.
Terms such as codified, uncodified, entrenched, unentrenched, federal, unitary, parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers and fusion of powers allow you to make comparisons precisely.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying the UK Constitution is unwritten
Why this is incorrect: The UK Constitution contains substantial written material, including statute law. Its defining feature is that it is uncodified, meaning the constitutional rules are not gathered within one constitutional document.
The 2025 examiner report specifically identified this mistake.
How to improve: Write:
"The UK Constitution is uncodified and partly written, with rules drawn from several sources."
Do not simply write:
"The UK has an unwritten constitution."
Mistake: Confusing codification with entrenchment
Why this is incorrect: The two terms describe different characteristics.
Codification concerns where constitutional rules are located.
Entrenchment concerns how difficult those rules are to change.
The 2025 examiner report identified confusion between these concepts as a common weakness.
How to improve: Remember:
codified = location
entrenched = protection from easy change
Mistake: Saying the UK has an entrenched constitutional Bill of Rights
Why this is incorrect: The UK has the historical Bill of Rights 1689, but it does not possess an entrenched constitutional Bill of Rights equivalent to the US Bill of Rights.
How to improve: Distinguish clearly between the US constitutional Bill of Rights and UK rights protection through sources including statute law such as the Human Rights Act 1998.
Mistake: Treating devolution as the same as federalism
Why this is incorrect: Both distribute power territorially, but their constitutional foundations differ.
US federalism is entrenched and divides authority between federal and state government.
UK devolution operates within a unitary constitutional system under parliamentary sovereignty.
How to improve: Always compare:
entrenchment
sovereignty
symmetry
constitutional origin
Mistake: Assuming US states are simply more powerful than all UK devolved bodies
Why this is incorrect: The key distinction is not a simple ranking of power. It is the constitutional status and distribution of powers.
The 2019 examiner report identified claims that federalism automatically makes US states more powerful than every devolved institution as a common error.
How to improve: Compare the basis of the powers rather than making an unsupported overall claim about which institution is "more powerful".
Mistake: Claiming devolved bodies have no legislative powers
Why this is incorrect: The devolved arrangements include bodies with legislative responsibilities.
This error was specifically identified in the 2019 examiner report.
How to improve: Focus on the constitutional distinction that their powers come from UK statute and exist within parliamentary sovereignty.
Mistake: Describing federalism as simply separation of powers
Why this is incorrect: These are separate constitutional principles.
Federalism concerns the territorial division of power between federal and state government.
Separation of powers concerns the division between legislative, executive and judicial branches.
The 2024 examiner report noted that some candidates showed poor understanding of federalism by discussing separation of powers instead.
How to improve:
Ask:
Federalism:Â Which level of government has power?
Separation of powers:Â Which branch of government has power?
Mistake: Bolting comparative theory onto the end
Why this is incorrect: Writing:
"This is structural."
does not explain anything.
The examiner reports repeatedly identify this as insufficient for Level 4 in Question 2.
How to improve: Use:
theory → constitutional factor → political consequence
For example:
Structurally, federalism is entrenched in the US Constitution whereas UK devolution derives from statute. This gives US state authority stronger formal constitutional protection and makes UK devolution more open to alteration through Parliament.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define the term codified constitution. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 2 marks for:
identifying that constitutional rules are brought together within a constitutional document
recognising that this creates a single codified constitutional framework
Question 2
Explain one difference between an entrenched and an unentrenched constitution. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 4 marks for a developed distinction.
Indicative answer:
An entrenched constitution contains constitutional rules that are more difficult to change than ordinary law. The US Constitution is formally entrenched. An unentrenched constitution, such as that of the UK, allows constitutional changes to be made through methods including ordinary statute law, giving it greater flexibility.
Question 3
Explain two ways in which the sources of the UK Constitution differ from those of the US Constitution. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 6 marks.
Indicative points include:
The US Constitution is codified within a single constitutional document, while the UK Constitution is uncodified and comes from several sources.
UK constitutional sources include statute law, common law, conventions, authoritative works and treaties.
US constitutional amendments, including the Bill of Rights, form part of the codified constitutional framework.
UK constitutional rules may therefore be changed or developed through a wider range of sources.
Credit developed comparison rather than separate description.
Question 4
Study the following constitutional features:
Country A | Country B |
Constitutional rules are contained in a single entrenched document. | Constitutional rules are drawn from statute, common law, conventions, authoritative works and treaties. |
Executive and legislature are institutionally separate. | Executive and legislature overlap. |
Analyse two constitutional differences illustrated by the information above. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 6 marks.
Possible points:
Codification
Country A resembles the USA because its constitutional rules are concentrated within a single document. Country B resembles the UK because its rules come from several sources.
This gives Country B greater constitutional flexibility.
Separation and fusion
Country A resembles the USA because executive and legislature are institutionally separated.
Country B resembles the UK because the executive and legislature overlap, demonstrating fusion of powers.
The strongest answers explain the political consequence of each difference rather than simply identifying it.
Question 5
Explain how separation of powers in the USA differs from the constitutional relationship between the executive and legislature in the UK. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award up to 6 marks.
Indicative answer:
The US Constitution establishes separation of powers between Congress and the presidency, making the executive and legislature institutionally independent. The UK instead has fusion of powers because the government is drawn from Parliament. This means that US political actors in separate branches must cooperate across institutionally distinct bodies, whereas a UK government may exercise substantial influence over Parliament, particularly where it commands sufficient parliamentary support.
Question 6
Analyse how the contrasting constitutional status of US federalism and UK devolution affects the distribution of political power. In your answer you must consider the relevance of at least one comparative theory. (12 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
A strong response could organise its analysis around three comparisons.
Entrenchment
US federalism is constitutionally entrenched.
UK devolution exists through statute.
Therefore state powers have stronger formal constitutional protection than devolved powers.
Structural theory:Â different formal constitutional structures create different levels of protection.
Sovereignty
Constitutional authority is divided between federal and state government in the USA.
Parliamentary sovereignty remains the UK constitutional principle.
Devolved institutions therefore do not possess sovereignty equivalent to US states.
Symmetry
US states possess the same basic constitutional status.
UK devolution is asymmetric.
Political powers therefore vary more between different parts of the UK.
For Level 4 access, comparative theory must be explained and integrated, not merely named.
Question 7
Analyse how differences in codification and entrenchment help explain the different operation of the UK and US Constitutions. In your answer you must consider the relevance of at least one comparative theory. (12 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative content:
Codification
The US Constitution is located within a codified constitutional document, while the UK Constitution is drawn from several sources.
This means US constitutional powers are more clearly concentrated within one framework, while UK arrangements can evolve through several constitutional mechanisms.
Entrenchment
The US Constitution is formally entrenched, making formal change difficult.
The UK Constitution is unentrenched and can therefore be changed more flexibly.
Structural theory
These different political outcomes can be explained structurally because the formal processes governing constitutional change differ.
Cultural theory
The US Constitution occupies a central position within American political culture, while UK constitutional practice has traditionally accepted greater flexibility.
The strongest answers compare throughout rather than describing the two countries separately.
Question 8
Analyse how rational, cultural and structural approaches can account for differences between US federalism and UK devolution. (12 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative content:
Structural
Federalism is entrenched in the US Constitution.
Devolution exists through statute within an unentrenched constitution.
US states therefore possess stronger formal constitutional protection.
Cultural
Federalism has been embedded within the US political system from its foundation.
Support for devolution has developed more recently and varies between different parts of the UK.
Different political cultures therefore contribute to different territorial arrangements.
Rational
US state political actors can use state powers to pursue policies they believe will produce beneficial outcomes.
UK political actors may seek additional devolved power when they believe greater autonomy will provide political benefits.
The asymmetric devolution settlement can therefore encourage demands for further powers or independence.
For high marks, the answer must use theory to explain why the political systems differ, not simply provide definitions of the three approaches.
Answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Award up to 2 marks for:
identifying that constitutional rules are brought together within a constitutional document
recognising that this creates a single codified constitutional framework
Question 2
Award up to 4 marks for a developed distinction.
Indicative answer:
An entrenched constitution contains constitutional rules that are more difficult to change than ordinary law. The US Constitution is formally entrenched. An unentrenched constitution, such as that of the UK, allows constitutional changes to be made through methods including ordinary statute law, giving it greater flexibility.
Question 3
Award up to 6 marks.
Indicative points include:
The US Constitution is codified within a single constitutional document, while the UK Constitution is uncodified and comes from several sources.
UK constitutional sources include statute law, common law, conventions, authoritative works and treaties.
US constitutional amendments, including the Bill of Rights, form part of the codified constitutional framework.
UK constitutional rules may therefore be changed or developed through a wider range of sources.
Credit developed comparison rather than separate description.
Question 4
Award up to 6 marks.
Possible points:
Codification
Country A resembles the USA because its constitutional rules are concentrated within a single document. Country B resembles the UK because its rules come from several sources.
This gives Country B greater constitutional flexibility.
Separation and fusion
Country A resembles the USA because executive and legislature are institutionally separated.
Country B resembles the UK because the executive and legislature overlap, demonstrating fusion of powers.
The strongest answers explain the political consequence of each difference rather than simply identifying it.
Question 5
Award up to 6 marks.
Indicative answer:
The US Constitution establishes separation of powers between Congress and the presidency, making the executive and legislature institutionally independent. The UK instead has fusion of powers because the government is drawn from Parliament. This means that US political actors in separate branches must cooperate across institutionally distinct bodies, whereas a UK government may exercise substantial influence over Parliament, particularly where it commands sufficient parliamentary support.
Question 6
A strong response could organise its analysis around three comparisons.
Entrenchment
US federalism is constitutionally entrenched.
UK devolution exists through statute.
Therefore state powers have stronger formal constitutional protection than devolved powers.
Structural theory:Â different formal constitutional structures create different levels of protection.
Sovereignty
Constitutional authority is divided between federal and state government in the USA.
Parliamentary sovereignty remains the UK constitutional principle.
Devolved institutions therefore do not possess sovereignty equivalent to US states.
Symmetry
US states possess the same basic constitutional status.
UK devolution is asymmetric.
Political powers therefore vary more between different parts of the UK.
For Level 4 access, comparative theory must be explained and integrated, not merely named.
Question 7
Indicative content:
Codification
The US Constitution is located within a codified constitutional document, while the UK Constitution is drawn from several sources.
This means US constitutional powers are more clearly concentrated within one framework, while UK arrangements can evolve through several constitutional mechanisms.
Entrenchment
The US Constitution is formally entrenched, making formal change difficult.
The UK Constitution is unentrenched and can therefore be changed more flexibly.
Structural theory
These different political outcomes can be explained structurally because the formal processes governing constitutional change differ.
Cultural theory
The US Constitution occupies a central position within American political culture, while UK constitutional practice has traditionally accepted greater flexibility.
The strongest answers compare throughout rather than describing the two countries separately.
Question 8
Indicative content:
Structural
Federalism is entrenched in the US Constitution.
Devolution exists through statute within an unentrenched constitution.
US states therefore possess stronger formal constitutional protection.
Cultural
Federalism has been embedded within the US political system from its foundation.
Support for devolution has developed more recently and varies between different parts of the UK.
Different political cultures therefore contribute to different territorial arrangements.
Rational
US state political actors can use state powers to pursue policies they believe will produce beneficial outcomes.
UK political actors may seek additional devolved power when they believe greater autonomy will provide political benefits.
The asymmetric devolution settlement can therefore encourage demands for further powers or independence.
For high marks, the answer must use theory to explain why the political systems differ, not simply provide definitions of the three approaches.
Comments