What are the essential differences between written and unwritten constitution?

Answer 1

One is written down as a constitution. The other is enshrined in a person - the Queen.

Answer 2

You more or less answered your own question. England and Australia, for example, persist in having no written constitution; law is simply a matter of what you can get away with.

In practice there seems little difference between the two. The Soviet empire had a written constitution which guaranteed rights which were never upheld in practice.

Increasingly this is the case in the United Sates as well through the process known as judicial activism. Judges have effectively abrogated the second amendment in many states. Many judges, including some Supreme court justices, have declared capitol punishment unconstitutional even though the constitution specifically contemplates its use; to give two examples.

Perhaps then the only real difference is how obvious it is when a government fritters away our civil rights.

Answer 3

The unwritten constitution is otherwise known as morals. Just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Answer 4

The written constituition was written by the dead with human errors in ghostly kitchen's dialect from the graveyards with living human kind living in misery in making a monkey out of themselves in planet of apes.
The unwritten constituition was created by our creator as universal gifts of life with universal laws vital for the survival and advancement of living human kind in planet of apes.

Answer 5

The former allows you to know your rights exactly - the latter does not.
Suits New McLabour down to the ground.

Answer 6

One's written, one isn't?

Answer 7

Ink, you dope.