Write a paragraph explaining why it would be important for a country to have a written constitution. consider the following: -the function of the constitution -what problems british subjects faced because they did not have a written constitution. - how those problems could have been solved with a written constitution.

A constitution is a body of principles and laws in which a government is organized upon. It can be written or unwritten, the British one being an example of the last option. Countries that do have a written constitution holds certain advantages over the countries that do not. One of them is that written constitutions are precise and leave little room for ambiguity. This is important to fulfill the function that the constitution has, that is the one of organizing the government. When a constitution is written, the head of the government has less tools to exercise power arbitrary. If Britain would have a written constitution, its citizens would certainly feel more integrated with the government's decisions as they would have a concrete piece of information to go to, in the case of any type of legal conflict.

this null effect is caused by a weak manipulation and ineffective internal validity. in a scientific study, as the one dr. morimoto is trying to perfom, internal validity refers to the confidence placed in the cause-effect relationship and to how well an experiment is done and able to eliminate confounding variables.