tences (2005, Internet).” More apparent evidence can bee seen from clause 29 and 30 “provision for the Court to be able to call upon additional judges as necessary and appropriate, either from among senior serving judges or from a supplementary panel of judges (Sewel Memorandum, Internet). It is not only about allocating balanced power to the judiciary, independence doctrine of the UK’s legal system is even guaranteed from the grass root. Part II of the Bill also makes provision for the appointment of judges to the Court including the number of judges and their terms and conditions of employment and in relation to the funding and administration of the court. It disqualifies judges holding office in the proposed new Supreme Court and other judges in full time employment from sitting and voting in the House of Lords;

III. Confidential Prospects behind the UK’s Constitutional Refor

Following the long-overdue drive to put the Constitutional Reform Act into the table of the United Kingdom’s legislation: applying to the whole UK, on March 2005 the Bill received the Royal Assent. Trapping herself into the principle of “government by the consent of the governed”, this Constitutional Reform Act does not only steer UK’s legal system into the modernized footing, but she is likely to be indulging herself into “a clear and present danger” test, this is likely to be on the line with professor Vernon Bogdanor, in his first online review publication, who referred to this reform as The Quiet Revolution (Vernon, 2005, Internet;) So what is the most clear-cut theme of this recent Constitutional Reform Act? Government’s response to the increased sensitivity of the judiciary to a need to observe the fundamentals of the British Constitution is the top-challenged answer;

I. Status Quo of the United Kingdom’s Constitution

Referred to as the-case-law country, constitution of the United Kingdom is unwritten and flexible and the sources of UK’s constitution can be found on different documents (conventions, customs, statute, etc); to be short there is not single document that codify the entire constitution of the United Kingdom. However, as she was one of the first to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international human right instruments, the right to equality, abolition from servitude, personal integrity, private ownership, political asylum and other human tenets are stipulated in the random sources of the UK’s constitution;

II. Constitutional Drawbacks and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005

In Constitutions of the World, Maddex seems to point to a lot of unfavorable traditions of the UK’s constitution when he says: “At the apex of the British judicial system is the lord chancellor, who is a member of the government and generally a member of the cabinet as well as a barrister holding political office and a member of the house of lords...” (Robert L. Maddex, 1995, Constitution of the world, p.298 ;) With reference to the above information, the UK’s constitution does not truly separate the three public sector powers: legislative, executive and judicial power. One power is not truly independent and sovereign from one another;

Categorized into the Common Law country, the United Kingdom does not have a complete Bill of Rights as the United States of America; as the result, a large number of important cases have been decided by the European Court of Human Right ... (Jowell & Oliver, 1994, the Changing Constitution, p. 33.) Under this constitutional evolving procedure (the UK’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005), Supreme Court is established (Party 2 of the Bill) and so the appellate jurisdictions as currently exercised by the Appellate Committee (referred to as the drawback of the UK’s constitution.) One of the most concrete advantages is transparently seen from this juristic revolution: the judiciary’s power climbs up to the level which is on par to that of the legislative and executive institution. One of the most unfavorable traditionalism of the UK’s legal system is now in the line to bereavement;

It is a protracted brainwash that we see the overlap between judicial and political vocation of the United Kingdom. One of the case examples has been found be MPs and the judges as stated “They object to the right of MPs to set minimum sentences, but have no problem with their setting maximum sentences (2005, Internet).” More apparent evidence can bee seen from clause 29 and 30 “provision for the Court to be able to call upon additional judges as necessary and appropriate, either from among senior serving judges or from a supplementary panel of judges (Sewel Memorandum, Internet). It is not only about allocating balanced power to the judiciary, independence doctrine of the UK’s legal system is even guaranteed from the grass root. Part II of the Bill also makes provision for the appointment of judges to the Court including the number of judges and their terms and conditions of employment and in relation to the funding and administration of the court. It disqualifies judges holding office in the proposed new Supreme Court and other judges in full time employment from sitting and voting in the House of Lords;

III. Confidential Prospects behind the UK’s Constitutional Reform

Status Quo of the United Kingdom’s Constitution

Referred to as the-case-law country, constitution of the United Kingdom is unwritten and flexible and the sources of UK’s constitution can be found on different documents (conventions, customs, statute, etc); to be short there is not single document that codify the entire constitution of the United Kingdom. However, as she was one of the first to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international human right instruments, the right to equality, abolition from servitude, personal integrity, private ownership, political asylum and other human tenets are stipulated in the random sources of the UK’s constitution;

II. Constitutional Drawbacks and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005

In Constitutions of the World, Maddex seems to point to a lot of unfavorable traditions of the UK’s constitution when he says: “At the apex of the British judicial system is the lord chancellor, who is a member of the government and generally a member of the cabinet as well as a barrister holding political office and a member of the house of lords...” (Robert L. Maddex, 1995, Constitution of the world, p.298 ;) With reference to the above information, the UK’s constitution does not truly separate the three public sector powers: legislative, executive and judicial power. One power is not truly independent and sovereign from one another;

Categorized into the Common Law country, the United Kingdom does not have a complete Bill of Rights as the United States of America; as the result, a large number of important cases have been decided by the European Court of Human Right ... (Jowell & Oliver, 1994, the Changing Constitution, p. 33.) Under this constitutional evolving procedure (the UK’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005), Supreme Court is established (Party 2 of the Bill) and so the appellate jurisdictions as currently exercised by the Appellate Committee (referred to as the drawback of the UK’s constitution.) One of the most concrete advantages is transparently seen from this juristic revolution: the judiciary’s power climbs up to the level which is on par to that of the legislative and executive institution. One of the most unfavorable traditionalism of the UK’s legal system is now in the line to bereavement;

It is a protracted brainwash that we see the overlap between judicial and political vocation of the United Kingdom. One of the case examples has been found be MPs and the judges as stated “They object to the right of MPs to set minimum sentences, but have no problem with their setting maximum sentences (2005, Internet).” More apparent evidence can bee seen from clause 29 and 30 “provision for the Court to be able to call upon additional judges as necessary and appropriate, either from among senior serving judges or from a supplementary panel of judges (Sewel Memorandum, Internet). It is not only about allocating balanced power to the judiciary, independence doctrine of the UK’s legal system is even guaranteed from the grass root. Part II of the Bill also makes provision for the appointment of judges to the Court including the number of judges and their terms and conditions of employment and in relation to the funding and administration of the court. It disqualifies judges holding office in the proposed new Supreme Court and other judges in full time employment from sitting and voting in the House of Lords;

III. Confidential Prospects behind the UK’s Constitutional Refor

point to a lot of unfavorable traditions of the UK’s constitution when he says: “At the apex of the British judicial system is the lord chancellor, who is a member of the government and generally a member of the cabinet as well as a barrister holding political office and a member of the house of lords...” (Robert L. Maddex, 1995, Constitution of the world, p.298 ;) With reference to the above information, the UK’s constitution does not truly separate the three public sector powers: legislative, executive and judicial power. One power is not truly independent and sovereign from one another;

Categorized into the Common Law country, the United Kingdom does not have a complete Bill of Rights as the United States of America; as the result, a large number of important cases have been decided by the European Court of Human Right ... (Jowell & Oliver, 1994, the Changing Constitution, p. 33.) Under this constitutional evolving procedure (the UK’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005), Supreme Court is established (Party 2 of the Bill) and so the appellate jurisdictions as currently exercised by the Appellate Committee (referred to as the drawback of the UK’s constitution.) One of the most concrete advantages is transparently seen from this juristic revolution: the judiciary’s power climbs up to the level which is on par to that of the legislative and executive institution. One of the most unfavorable traditionalism of the UK’s legal system is now in the line to bereavement;

It is a protracted brainwash that we see the overlap between judicial and political vocation of the United Kingdom. One of the case examples has been found be MPs and the judges as stated “They object to the right of MPs to set minimum sentences, but have no problem with their setting maximum sentences (2005, Internet).” More apparent evidence can bee seen from clause 29 and 30 “provision for the Court to be able to call upon additional judges as necessary and appropriate, either from among senior serving judges or from a supplementary panel of judges (Sewel Memorandum, Internet). It is not only about allocating balanced power to the judiciary, independence doctrine of the UK’s legal system is even guaranteed from the grass root. Part II of the Bill also makes provision for the appointment of judges to the Court including the number of judges and their terms and conditions of employment and in relation to the funding and administration of the court. It disqualifies judges holding office in the proposed new Supreme Court and other judges in full time employment from sitting and voting in the House of Lords;

III. Confidential Prospects behind the UK’s Constitutional Refor

p. 33.) Under this constitutional evolving procedure (the UK’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005), Supreme Court is established (Party 2 of the Bill) and so the appellate jurisdictions as currently exercised by the Appellate Committee (referred to as the drawback of the UK’s constitution.) One of the most concrete advantages is transparently seen from this juristic revolution: the judiciary’s power climbs up to the level which is on par to that of the legislative and executive institution. One of the most unfavorable traditionalism of the UK’s legal system is now in the line to bereavement;

It is a protracted brainwash that we see the overlap between judicial and political vocation of the United Kingdom. One of the case examples has been found be MPs and the judges as stated “They object to the right of MPs to set minimum sentences, but have no problem with their setting maximum sentences (2005, Internet).” More apparent evidence can bee seen from clause 29 and 30 “provision for the Court to be able to call upon additional judges as necessary and appropriate, either from among senior serving judges or from a supplementary panel of judges (Sewel Memorandum, Internet). It is not only about allocating balanced power to the judiciary, independence doctrine of the UK’s legal system is even guaranteed from the grass root. Part II of the Bill also makes provision for the appointment of judges to the Court including the number of judges and their terms and conditions of employment and in relation to the funding and administration of the court. It disqualifies judges holding office in the proposed new Supreme Court and other judges in full time employment from sitting and voting in the House of Lords;

III. Confidential Prospects behind the UK’s Constitutional Refor

tences (2005, Internet).” More apparent evidence can bee seen from clause 29 and 30 “provision for the Court to be able to call upon additional judges as necessary and appropriate, either from among senior serving judges or from a supplementary panel of judges (Sewel Memorandum, Internet). It is not only about allocating balanced power to the judiciary, independence doctrine of the UK’s legal system is even guaranteed from the grass root. Part II of the Bill also makes provision for the appointment of judges to the Court including the number of judges and their terms and conditions of employment and in relation to the funding and administration of the court. It disqualifies judges holding office in the proposed new Supreme Court and other judges in full time employment from sitting and voting in the House of Lords;

III. Confidential Prospects behind the UK’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005

The most important theme of this Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is to modernize the legal system of the United Kingdom: putting more balanced power, independent mechanism toward selecting the judges; all are the mechanism to reach equal human dignities as stipulated in Article 6 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.