In parallel to the USA, New Zealand’s current constitution is neither supreme nor entrenched, a trait inherited from Great Britain. A benefit of this i... ... middle of paper ... ...of the legislature whose role is to make law. A new supreme constitution would remove the executive power to overrule judicial authority in circumstances where decisions were made involving the constitution. In deciding to make a supreme constitution for New Zealand a consideration of whether to grant the judiciary with this extended power needs to be deliberated. Many would argue that allowing an un-elected judge supreme power over the elected Members of Parliament would be undemocratic and henceforth violate the staple principle of our society.
In result, making the legislation and no court or higher body has legal power to declare the legislation validity. The UK constitution is uncodified which means it is unwritten. According to Professor Leyland’s he says that the history of the British constitution is significant to the current practice . For example, the Bill of Rights 1689 gave inheritance to the current principle that resulted in making the crown, House of Lords and House of common with unlimited legislative authority. Therefore, the legal sovereignty of parliament was Dicey’s regarded founding principle of the constitution.
The Rule of Law means that the state should govern its citizens, in a way which works with the rules that have been agreed on. The Rule of Law is simply a fundamental principle of our constitution. Britain and other Western democracies are different in that Britain has an unwritten constitution, meaning that our constitution is not found in a certain document but that we actually have a constitution from the rules about who governs it, and about the powers they entail and how that power can be passed or even transferred. The Constitution includes; Acts of Parliament, Judicial decisions and Conventions.There are three main principles around the Rule of Law being the separation of powers, the supremacy of Parliament and the Rule of Law. The
The most distinctive part of New Zealand’s constitution, when compared to other nations, is that our constitution is not a supreme form of law. The idea of a supreme law constitution is that when ordinary law conflicts with constitutional law it can be declared void by the courts. Codifying all individual constitutional documents and conventions into a supreme law constitutional, would result in a greater check on legislative power. This would result as the Judiciary could strike down legislation if it did not align with the constitutional principles. The role of the Judiciary is to interpret the law that the Legislative branch of government makes.
This causes many to question the existence of royalty in the modern times. With a Prime Minister in charge of running the government, monarchy is limited in power and seem to exist more as a tradition and a symbol for nation's citizens to look up to. Before the beginning of the eighteenth century, the British monarchy were considered executive monarchs. Executive monarchy means that the Sovereign is able to make and pass legislation. Nowadays, the monarchy we know is constitutional monarchy.
In response to such criticism, Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist 78, in which he said the courts as outlined by the constitution are the weakest branch of government because, It [Judiciary Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. (1) Hamilton, along with many others, believes that the constitution implies that the courts have the power to judge issues brought to the Supreme Court. The courts ability to rule on the constitutionality of issues is not specifically mentioned the constitution but was reaffirmed in the landmark Supreme Court decision, Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. In declaring that the courts have the ability to determine a laws constitutionality, chief justice John Marshall established a policy of judicial review. Marshall’s decision gave the courts inherent powers the constitution didn’t specifically mention but also created a new dilemma for the courts: how to go about interpreting laws.
He proposed three forms of governmental powers, namely the legislative, executive and judiciary. The Legislative power is the supreme law making body, specifically the Parliament. In speaking of the Executive we are referring to the Government whose duty is... ... middle of paper ... ...wer so the government can control itself, and it suggests that this can only be done through various divisions, which can ‘check’ on each other to avoid tyranny and ensure efficiency. Some modern commentators have concluded that the doctrine has little meaning today because the Executive largely dominates the Legislature. Therefore in conclusion having considered the theory of overlap in the British Constitution, it can be said that there is no ‘pure’ separation of powers.
Much of the original law for civil liberties (e.g. publication, press and free speech) are all based on the common law. The rule in Great Britain is that if there isn't a law against it, it must be legal. Conventions are regularly observed practices but have no legal basis and are not enforceable in the courts. All states evolve around constitutional conventions if they are flexible enough.
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK. This contrasts to many European and Commonwealth countries, which have a clearly defined constitutional settlement. The closest thing the UK has to a bill of rights today is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) into domestic law. The key features within the unwritten constitution would be described as being uncodified, not ingrained therefore flexible and unitary (excluding recent devolution) With that said, the UK, ... ... middle of paper ... ...ion. This would become a problem for a number of reasons: Judges are unrepresentative of the public; as such they are unlikely to represent minority groups or activists.
Ministerial Accountability Under the UK Constitution “The prerogative has allowed powers to move from Monarch to Ministers without Parliament having a say in how they are exercised. This should no longer be acceptable to Parliament or the people.” Discuss whether ministerial accountability is adequately addressed under the UK constitution The Royal Prerogative has allowed a wide array of discretionary powers to be delegated from the Monarch to ministers without a need to seek parliamentary approval. This system is both unjust and undemocratic as it leaves a number of largely unchecked powers in the hands of a privileged few. These powers, including the ability to ratify treaties, declare war, regulate the civil service and appoint ministers, have a profound effect on the lives of the citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore it is necessary for them to be regulated by Parliament, the democratically elected body of the British people. While there are no legal rules governing how ministers can exercise the prerogative, they are subject to a number of non-legal rules and conventions, in particular the convention of ministerial responsibility.