An Analysis of the Powers of the European Parliament
History of the European Parliament:
On the 18th April 1951 the Ministers representing France, Germany,
Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg signed in Paris a treaty which
established the European Coal and Steel Community, the ECSC was born.
The most important feature of the ECSC was its supranational
character, it was a supranational organization. It was aptly described
as a 'quasi federation in an important economic sector.[1] The
Community was endowed with five organs;
1. An executive, called the High Authority
2. A Consultative Committee attached to the High Authority
3. A Special Council of Ministers
4. An Assembly
5. A Court of Justice
Under the ECSC Treaty the European Parliament had a modest role of
supervising the High Authority. The original designation 'Assembly'
reflected its lowly status and the French influence[2] In order to
enhance its prestige the Assembly adopted the title 'European
Parliamentary Assembly,[3] and then renamed itself 'European
Parliament'[4]. Although this designation was used in its working
papers and the Council documents, the original title was used until it
was replaced by the Single European Act[5]
The European Parliament:
The ECSC assembly met for the first time in Strasbourg in 1952. Five
years later, the six member countries signed the Treaty of Rome to
create the European Economic Community, which included a European
Parliament of 142 members, all of them representatives of their
national Parliaments seconded to Europe. In 1973, the United Kingdom,
Denmark and Ireland joined the EEC bringing the Parliament...
... middle of paper ...
...estigated and seek to protect themselves behind whatever
constitutional, institutional or party political defences are
available
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] By Guy de Carmay, Fortune d'Europe (1953)
[2] Under the ancient regime, Parlements were Courts subservient to
the executive
[3] Resolution of 20 March 1958 (OJ 1958, p6)
[4] Resolution of 30 March 1962 (OJ 1962 p1045)
[5] Single European Act (Article 3(1))
[6] OJ 1999 L202/1
[7] Case 230/81: Luxembourgv European parliament [1983] ECR 255
[8] Roquette Freres v Council (Case 138/79)
[9] European parliament v Council (Case C-65/90)
[10] European Parliament v Council (Case C-388/92)
[11] European parliament v Council (Case C-65/93
[12] European Parliament v Council (Case C 417/93)
The Schuman proposal began various European countries setting up the European Coal and Steal Community (ECSC), this was signed in 1951 by six countries. The countries that initially set up the ECSC were France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. The idea behind the ECSC was the first serious institutional committee in Europe and was the start of integration, the aim was to provide a common market of coal and steel trade. This meant that each of the states would be able to have access to the various qualities of coal and steel that the members had with no tariff of importing and exporting to the various countries. This let the countries concentrate on their more efficient areas leading to specialisation. The ECSC began the beginning of supranational power because the "High Authority could adopt binding decisions" (1) as elements of decision making were carried out by ECSC committees. A supranational power is where the member state has to abide by the decisions made of the community, as they have power above the national level.
Yes, I think Congress has too much power. Because under the constitution, Congress has the most important power and that is to make/change laws. (The powers of Congress-http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp) In this paper I will explain to you how Congress has too much power by, it being split into two large bicameral legislatures, they have the power of impeachment, and they have the power to approve the spending of federal money.
The most significant and challenge to the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty was Britain’s membership of the European Community in 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 brought with it the requirement that European Law be given priority over domestic courts over conflicting issues of national law. This notion was a direct affront to parliamentary sovereignty, which required that if a later statute, contradicted and earlier statute, which sought to incorporate European Law into English Law, then the later statute should impliedly repeal the earlier statute. Therefore the European Communities act imposed a substantive limit on the legislative ability of subsequent Parliaments.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
The Supreme Court first considered Article III's "case or controversy" limitation on the judicial power when President George Washington forwarded to the Court a request for guidance as to how best to maintain neutrality, during an outbreak of hostilities between England and France, consistent with international law and treaties to which the United States was a party. Chief Justice Jay responded by informing the President that the Court was without power to help (the President had said he would be "much relieved" if the Court answered his questions). Jay said that the Constitution authorized the Court to interpret the law only in the context of a real case or controversy--it had no power to render an advisory opinion about the law. (Note that this limitation on the judicial power is not shared by many state supreme courts, which often do issue advisory opinions.)
Tiilikainen, T. 2011. The empowered European Parliament: Accommodation to the new functions provided by the Lisbon Treaty. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
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.
The EU is a union of sovereign European states who share sovereignty based on treaty. The union also possesses competences in policy sectors with exclusive jurisdiction in the area of Economic and Monetary Union while others are shared with Member States (MS), the other powers belong to MS as derived from the conferral of powers art 5(2) TEU, 2(1) TFEU art.3 & 4 TFEU additionally other powers have been offered by the decisions of the European Court for direct effect on citizens
Which EU institution is the most powerful? The European Union (EU) is currently made up of 25 countries, known as Member States, which together form the largest voluntary and peaceful block of countries in the world. Many people mistakenly view the European Union as a single body whilst in fact; the EU consists of a number of different institutions that together carry out activities on behalf of the Member States. There are many institutions but the main five being the Commission, the Council of Ministers (also called the Council of the European Union), the European Council and the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. In this essay I am going to focus on these institutions and discuss which is to be considered more powerful.
An issue that has remained debatable since the Jackson litigation was what ought to be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. This essay sets out to consider the reputedly irreconcilable tension between the two fundamental constitutional principles by analysing the extensive obiter dicta in Jackson and relating it to judicial review which upholds the rule of law. The contention of this essay is that despite the courts' deferential attitude towards the sovereignty of the laws of Parliament, the rule of law may potentially gain dominance and surpass parliamentary sovereignty to become the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution.
pg 296 [3] M and J Spencer “Constitutional and Administrative Law” (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2000) pg 28 [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407374,00.html
The highest source of authority is the United Kingdom Parliament and Acts of Parliament are the highest form of law.
Senior, Nello Susan. "Chapters:4,15." The European Union: Economics, Policies and History. London: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
Frank J. Goodnow’s “Politics and Administration,” infers that politics and administration cannot be divided and are in need of each other to function. However, politics are superior to administration. Goodnow’s further analyzes and identifies three forms of authorities that enforce and implements states will. The first responsibility of authority is to respect the right of the people when conflicts ascend between either private or public matters. The second is judicial authorities also referred to as executive authorities that ensure the needs and policies of the state are executed. The third authority also referred to as “administrative authorities,” focuses on the mechanical, scientific and business authorities pertaining to the government.
‘The Parliamentary legislative process fails to achieve its primary purpose: it fails to ensure effective legislative scrutiny of Parliamentary Bills.’ Discuss.