Exploring To Which Extent the Parliament is Supreme
There are two sides to this argument, one obviously defending that
Parliament is Supreme in the law making process, and has utmost
authority, the other stating the constraints on Parliament and there
it is not supreme.
Within Britain, parliament is the supreme law making body. The idea
behind this is that the people select parliament and, therefore, the
people make the law. We describe this as PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNITY,
That is to say that Parliament is the highest power in the land, and
shall not be challenged. An example that shows parliamentary supremacy
is Cheney .vs. Conn (1968). Within this case the claimant argued that
he did not want to pay his taxes because Parliament was using them to
fund nuclear missiles, and this was a breach of the Geneva Convention.
The court said that "Parliament shall not be bound if it so desired",
that is to say it is not for anyone to declare Parliamentary action
illegal.
This case shows us how Parliament is supreme in the respect no one can
challenge its judgement. However, we can see plenty of examples of how
Parliamentary supremacy is restricted.
Take for example the case of Factatane (1990) In which we see how
European law, has a huge impact on the sovereignty of Parliament. In
this case we see Spanish fishing companies registering boats in the UK
in order to receive some of the British Fishing quota. According to EU
law this is perfectly fine, however it contradicts Parliaments
Merchant fishing act (1988) Britain tried to prevent the Spanish
companies doing this under British legislation, however, this case set
a precedent wher...
... middle of paper ...
...ent are instructed when and how to vote
by the party whips. The limit on what Parliament can do is therefore
in reality set by the views of the Cabinet as to the best political
decision. Having said that, a great deal of law is not at all
political in content and similar rules would be constructed no matter
which political party was in power.
To Conclude, One can say that there are restraints on Parliament, and
these do affect its supremacy, and sovereignty. However, in my opinion
we can say that although these restrictions are there, Parliament
remains the supreme law maker and highest body within this country
even over Europe. I believe this as Parliament still has the power to
pass a statute allowing us to leave the EU, until this is taken from
Parliament, I feel it is still the most powerful body in this country.
This paper will argue that the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a quasi-legislative approach in its decision making as a result of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. Quasi-legislative is defined as having a partly legislative character by possession of the right to make rules and regulations, having the force of law (Merriam-Webster). In this paper, it is useful to define quasi-legislative as the court’s ability to influence policy, be it innocent or motivated, through charter enf...
Cases on the foundations of a constitutional order, such as parliamentary sovereignty, tend to be rare in any event. But what makes R (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] U.K.HL. 56; [2006] 1 A.C. 262 a significant case, is the dicta regarding constitutional issues mentioned by the judges in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. The discussions of the central issues in the case are in many ways constitutionally orthodox, treating the primary concerns as that of statutory interpretation and adopting a literal interpretation of the 1911 Act. By contrast, the discussion of the wider issues suggest that the judiciary may have support for what could be classed as unorthodox opinions on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is to be considered as a mere ideology in the eyes of the legislature, as the modern day practical sovereign parliament is far from that of the theory.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
...of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on the judiciary.
In conclusion it seems that the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty as purported by Dicey is no longer an immutable part of our constitution. Although it remains a key principle of our constitution, it has now been reinterpreted in light of seminal cases such as Factortame and Jackson, from a legally unchangeable, rule of our constitution, to one in which Parliament is no longer prevented from placing limits to the content and form of itself.
In writing the Constitution, the Framers were aiming to rectify the states’ inadequate attempt at establishing a democratic government. They wanted to create a stronger government while simultaneously keeping it a democracy and protecting the Peoples’ power within it. Wary of monarchy, they intended to constrain their envisioned government’s power by creating checks and balances between and within its branches. Did they do a good enough job? In Section I, we see the Framers’ intentions for the legislature’s lower chamber to be the government’s source of democracy. Section II reveals the absence of an essential check on the legislative branch, and how leaving the legislature unchecked in regard to its own elections threatens democracy in the Framers’ government. Section III shows how my amendment creates the necessary checks to address this threat, and thus protects democracy and the People in the Framers’ government.
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
Parliament was used to "manage the Crown's business (Loades 90)." The parliament was also used to pass bills and legislature, but each time a bill was presented, it was mandatory that it would go through each house at least three times. As the age of the Parliament became older, it's procedures grew "more sophisticated, and more strictly enforced." (Loades 92) The Parliament also became a place at which "provided a very good platform for a monarch who wanted to say something of particular
The RP helps to keep our powers separated which avoiding the judicial tyranny. After the formation of the two houses of parliament, which called the legislature, the creation of our statutes prevail to the RP. In the case of De Kayser, RP and statute found to co-exist and statute prevails, for the reason that the representatives in the House of Commons are elected from the public in order to create statute to help the development of the country. Moreover, the constitutional conventions are also part of our unwritten constitution and have conflict to the royal prerogative. Some of the RP powers are included to the conventions such as the automatic granting of royal assent, which the Queen should sign after the convention. Finally, the fire brigades union case mentioned that the executive cannot exercise the prerogative in a way which would derogate from the due fulfilment of statutory duty. The data indicates that the current prime minister, has power to overrule the UK’s parliament recent vote of a military intervention in Syria by using the RP which bypass any common decision of acts of war. Generally, powers such as the parliamentary immunity and prerogative powers, destroy the equality and justice of the society, by giving permission, to avoid the soft process of the legitimate society and finally breaking the rule of law. Supporting this argument, a member of parliament, Jack Straw strongly
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
The Parliament, through its investigative procedures, however, can question the Government to reckon for its use of the prerogative. The Prerogative governs the kingdom using the name of the Crown, the monarch’s role has no enforcement of discretion, even though she has “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to
Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials by Andrew Le Sueur, Maurice Sunkin and Jo Murkens (Paperback - 12 Aug 2010) chapter 8 p 368-418
This type of rule of law is upheld through administrative law and by the practice of judicial review. This states out the fact that ‘no one is above the law’ , although there are some aspects that can undermine this factor. Take for instance the powers of the prime minister who’s powers are based solely on the Royal prerogative which is not subject to judicial
is the House of Commons a law-maker in the true sense of the word. The