The primary concern of Brutus is that judicial review is a stealth weapon implicit in the
idea of a written Constitution that would be used by the evildoing Federalists to dispower the states.
It would have been helpful had Robert Bork laid out the evidence he merely mentions in claiming that the moral and political havoc wreaked by the Supreme Court «is the inevitable
result of our written Constitution and the power of judicial review.»
Contemporary organised demand for constitutional reform traces back to the late 1970s, yet even before then, isolated intellectuals — «a voice crying in the wilderness» — had tried to make an issue out
of a written constitution for Britain that would include a Bill of Rights.
Graham Allen, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, set up by the House of Commons in 2010 with an open - ended remit to «consider political and constitutional reform» (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee 2010b), is a Labour Party MP who has been described as a «long - term
champion of a written constitution» (Atkins 2014).
Relying on the words of the delegates themselves to explore the Convention's sharp conflicts and hard bargaining, David O. Stewart lays out the passions and contradictions of the often painful
process of writing the Constitution.
If PM Blair never entertained the
idea of a written constitution, his successor, Gordon Brown, is remembered, contrastingly, for his commitment to it (Kelly 2014).
My view is that a principled case can and should be advanced for the third of the options — that
of a written constitution (a statement telling us in exemplary form only what we might have) being «a document of basic law by which the United Kingdom would be governed, setting out the relationship between the state and its citizens, an amendment procedure and elements of reform.»