Comparative Constitutionalism: A Systematic Analysis of the United States Constitution and the United Kingdom's Uncodified Constitutional Framework- Codified Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Comparative Study of US and UK Constitutional Mod

Codified Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Comparative Study of US and UK Constitutional Models, authored by Nale Satarkar Ganesh Shrirang , Department of Law, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India/ Central university of Haryana , undertakes an in-depth and systematic comparative analysis of the constitutional frameworks of the United States and the United Kingdom, focusing on their historical development, philosophical foundations, institutional design, and practical modes of constitutional governance. The study critically examines the United States’ codified, supreme, and judicially enforceable constitutional system, grounded in popular sovereignty, separation of powers, federalism, and entrenched fundamental rights, in contrast to the United Kingdom’s uncodified and evolutionary constitutional framework characterized by parliamentary sovereignty, constitutional flexibility, conventions, and the absence of a single authoritative constitutional text. Particular attention is devoted to the distribution of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, the nature and limits of executive authority, the role of judicial review and constitutional interpretation, the protection and enforceability of fundamental rights, the procedures and rigidity of constitutional amendment, and the structural distinction between federalism in the United States and devolution within the United Kingdom. The paper further explores contemporary constitutional challenges confronting both systems, including political polarization, the growing influence and contested legitimacy of the judiciary, tensions between central authority and sub-national governance, devolutionary pressures, post-Brexit constitutional transformations in the United Kingdom, and increasing debates over the desirability and feasibility of constitutional codification. By situating these issues within a comparative constitutional framework, the study contributes to broader constitutional and public law scholarship by offering nuanced insights into democratic governance, constitutional stability and adaptability, institutional accountability, and the capacity of constitutional systems to respond to social, political, and legal change while maintaining democratic legitimacy.