In reference to the notion that “Written conventions and constitutions are

incompatible with each other,” is correct. Conventions are the unwritten

understandings about how something in parliament should be done, although they are
not legally enforceable, they are universally observed. On the other hand the
constitution is the most important legal source in the Caribbean. It is the
founding document of a country and it confirms the independent status of a country.
Constitutions set the none for the type of governance in a country.Constitutions
and conventions are incompatible because conventional rules may be in conflict with
constitutional laws. Constitutions are advantageous because they are concise, its
is based on knowldge, experience and facts. Constitutions protet the rights of
individuals and constituions provides for the separation of powers. However
constitutions have demertis as well they are rigid and difficult to ammend.
Conventions can also be advantageous because they can help guide and interpret the
constitution and help rue favourably.

Constitutions are advantageous because they are very concise, removing any
drawbacks that uncertainties can bring about. Since it is drawn after long and
elaborate deliberations, constitutions are based on knowledge and experience and
not emotions or hastily-made decisions. Comstitutions are the founding document of
contries and spell out the terms of governance in a country. With reference to the
rule of law, it protects the rights of individuals since those in power cannot
easily change them or supercede the constitution.It is the most stable law
structure and is best suited for an emergency period in a country. For federal
governments, a written constitution provides for the separation of central and
federal power. It specifies who has the power to make decisions in a society. It
decides how the government will be constituted.

The times have changed and situations that cannot always be dealt with in the
constitution because of limited abilities of the constituiton. Therefore
conventions though not legally enforcable create a standard of procedure to ensure
the smooth saling of operation. It is quite difficult to amend a constitution as
they are very rigid. Some clauses in such documents depend on the judicial
interpretation that, at times, might not be ideal. It encompasses a nation’s entire
rules and ideals, a factor that might be less than ideal for some ages. It can be
too exhaustive.

Conventions are unwritten principles that guide courts in deciding how to best
approach a constitutional question. They are considered part of the subtext of the
constitution, similar to the Preamble of any legislation. Neither are actual laws,
but give courts context to respond to constitutional questions. Conventions form
when a typical custom becomes hardened into a formal practice. Political
conversation, negotiation, and past governmental practice often shape conventions.
Conventions can assist courts in narrowing a question that arises from a broad law.
Alternately, legislation can be written more specifically to ensure a narrow
interpretation and application. In such a case, conventions provide courts with
the ability to interpret a law with more flexibility, if necessary.

On the other hand, conventional rules are not enforced by the courts because they
may be in conflict with the legal rules that the courts are bound to enforce. Legal
constitutional provisions can create wide powers, discretions and rights;
conventions often limit the way in which these powers can be used. For example, the
written Constitution would allow the Governor General to refuse Assent to any bill
passed by both Houses of Parliament, but convention circumscribes this power
entirely. Conventions that limit the Governor General’s powers with respect to the
executive government and Parliament; The Governor General accepts the Prime
Minister’s advice as to when to dissolve Parliament, with the possible exception of
situations where the government has clearly lost the confidence of the House of
Parliament and there is another party leader capable of forming the government. He
or she also accepts the Prime Minister’s advice as to when to recall Parliament,
so long as it is clear or probable that the Prime Minister can sustain the
confidence of Parliament.

Written conventions and constitutions are incompatible with each other.

Conventions are the unwritten understandings about how something in should be done
and they ar not law but they are long esatablished traditions which are followed
because they are the deemed appropriatethe right way to act. Constitutions however,
is the founding and the superioir legal source in a country. Conventions cannot be
enforced by law as they may subvert the constitution. As a result they are not
compatible.