Compare the powers contained in the UK and US constitutions (12)

The US and UK both have constitutions, however the US constitution is entrenched and codified, whist the UK’s is unentrenched and uncodified. Both constitutions, however, contain certain powers that effects aspects like the rights of the people, the separation of powers and checks and balances on the government. Therefore the powers contained in the UK and US constitutions will be compared.
The main comparison between the US and UK constitutions is arguably the checks and balances on the representatives. Both constitutions provide checks and balances, with legislatures able to provide checks on the executive branch. In the UK a system of checks and balances exists between the three branches of the executive, legislative and the judiciary. Parliament can check government by voting on government proposals and by using a vote of no confidence, as seen with Prime Minister Theresa May in 2018. Although parliament can check government, in the UK, checks and balances can be argued to be limited. The Prime Minister is head of the government, and therefore commands a majority in the House of Commons. This combined with a powerful whip system and high party patronage results in parliament being inclined to not vote against the Prime Minister, which therefore suggests that in fact the checks and balances in the UK constitution are limited. In comparison to this, the US constitution provides extensive checks and balances which prevents executive domination, which can be seen in the UK. There are two elected chambers in Congress, which is different to the elected House of Commons and unelected House of Lords in the UK. The fact that Congress is elected means that both the House and the Senate can provide powerful checks on the executive and on each other. Although the President can propose legislation and nominate to the executive and judiciary, he cannot amend and pass legislation, which is something only Congress can do. As well as this, Congress tend to not have as high party patronage, as can be seen in the UK, and therefore they tend to vote in line with their constituents rather than their party.  
A second comparison between the US and UK constitutions would be the separation of powers. The UK has a parliamentary system, whilst the US has a presidential system, which both have 3 branches of the legislative, judiciary and executive. In the UK, the three branches can overlap and therefore there can be an amalgamation of powers, whilst in the US, no one can be part of two branches at the same time, which creates a clear separation of powers. In the US there are also separate elections for both the legislative and the executive, whilst in the UK people only vote for the legislative. One might argue that the presidential system of the US is more democratic because everyone is elected, however it can make it very difficult as there tends to not be a congressional majority which makes it incredibly hard for legislation to be passed through. One can ague that because of the separation of powers the location of sovereignty is unclear. In the UK, Parliament has absolute power, and they can amend the constitution with a simple 50%+ vote in the Commons. In the US however, the Constitution is sovereign and its sovereignty is held up by the Supreme court. In the US, the constitution is entrenched, therefore it is protected from change and in order to change the Constitution 3/4 of states need to agree and 2/3 of Congress need to agree, which is very difficult to achieve. One might argue that because the US constitution is so hard to amend, it can become outdated, whilst with the UK constitution it is able to evolve with time. 
A final comparison between the US and UK constitutions would be the location of regional power. In 1997 under Prime Minister Tony Blair, the UK underwent a form of devolution. This is where parliament is able to give power to the regions, but the power is not constitutionally guaranteed, meaning that parliament can revoke it at any time. The devolved bodies in the UK include Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. All of these devolved bodies have different levels of power with Scottish Parliament holding the highest level of being able to set their own economic development rates and decide their own judiciary, whilst Welsh Assembly only being able to set their own policies on things like housing and tourism. In the US however, regional power is created through the provision of federalism. The power of the states cannot be reduced without their consent through a 75% vote to amend the Constitution. In the US, unlike the UK regional power is even, meaning that each state has the same powers. Thus concluding that regional power of the states in the US is more extensive than those of the UK. 
To conclude, it is clear to say that both constitutions of the US and the UK lay out different powers for the executive, legislative and the judiciary. The US constitution contains more powers however, because of the fact that it is entrenched and codified, unlike the UK’s. The UK’s constitution being uncodified and unentrenched, however, does mean that it is able to evolve and therefore cannot be said to be outdated, as it is constantly changing, unlike the US constitution.