Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political Theory and Ideology
roles of political ideology in a political system
roles of political ideology in a political system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political Theory and Ideology
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.
Firstly the link of the 1911 Act with Jackson will demonstrate the questions the court has regarding the supremacy of parliament. Secondly, how the manner and form theory supports my argument as it focuses on how parliament can place restrictions upon the manner and form in which legislation is enacted, at the same time critiquing how important Jackson is for the future significance of parliamentary sovereignty.
The ideology of parliamentary sovereignty represents a constitutional order that acknowledges the necessary power of government, while placing legal limits and conditions upon its excise due to the Rule of Law, developed by the judiciary in cases such as Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765. The Diceyan theory represents a definition of parliamentary sovereignty. A general summary recalls that,
Jack...
... middle of paper ...
...744d06400000134bfd520f73eba0b8c%26context%3D8%26crumb-action%3Dappend%26resolvein%3Dtrue%26hitguid%3DI92E909C0234F11E1982FE5D0D37ED1E5%26td%3D1%26docguid%3DI92E909C0234F11E1982FE5D0D37ED1E5%26epos%3D1%26spos%3D1&crumb-action=append&context=12
Date of access – (9/12/11)
20) Bamforth,N. Int. Jnl. Of constitutional law. Current issues in United Kingdom constitutionalism: An introduction 2011 9 (1) 79-85 doi: 10.1093/icon/mor029 (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
21) McCrudden, C. Int Jnl Constitutional Law. Multiculturalism, freedom of religion, equality, and the British constitution: The JFS case considered 20119 (1) 200-229 doi: 10.1093/icon/mor022 (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
22) Marquand, D. The Coalition and the Constitution by Vernon Bogdanor. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/may/15/coalition-constitution-vernon-bogdanor-review (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
Gunther, G. (1991). Constitutional Law. Twelfth Edition. New York: The Foundation Press, Inc. pp. 1154-1161.
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
...MP and the Constitution." New Zealand Journal of Political and International Law 7.1 (2009): 111-134. Hein Online. Web. 16 Mar. 2012.
“The Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxi) Marriage: (xxii) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and relation thereto, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of inf...
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
To give conventions justiciable entitlement would be taking away from the highly advantageous flexibility that the UK Constitution has attained from remaining uncodified. Further, the large volume of conventions may provide a difficulty in enforcing them within the courts. In contrast, it could be argued that codifying select conventions may bring certainty to many unclear areas, such as defining the Ministerial Code partly did, thus providing an easier structure for conventions to be enforced legally. However, conventions are merely seen as a moral and political obligations, and should not upon breach have legally enforceable consequences. The argument against whether the court should enforce conventions will be supported and discussed in this essay.
Boyer, J., Patrick. “The Case for Election Law Reform,” Parliamentary Government, 8.2 (1989): 13-16. Print
In his comparative study of the constitutional law, Ridley advanced that the United Kingdom, in fact, does not have a constitution. He mentioned the lack of distinction between the ‘constitutional law’ and ‘ordinary law’, as the formal can be easily changed as, and even repealed by, the latter. This is due to the fact that the British constitution distinguishes itself from other nation with an absence of a special legal mechanism to allow amendments in the constitutions; instead, constitutional rules in the United Kingdom are subsequently replaced or modified when an ordinary Act of Parliament is passed. This reflects the decisive role of parliament in the establishment and development of constitution in the United Kingdom. The legal doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is, nonetheless, criticized by Ridley, as he believes the constitution should be prior to, “outside and above” the system of government, given that the power of government should be distributed by constitution. Adopting a different approach, Anthony King, by placing less emphasis on the prior existence of constitution, argued that in the context of British constitution, the government is the
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
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.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.
Sovereignty should be clearly differentiated and distinguished. It is divided into legal sovereignty as well as political sovereignty. Legal sovereignty is concerned with the legal relationship between the courts and Parliament.
no institution can hold the Act of Parliament invalid as explained in Madzimbamuto v Lardner – Burke3