Laws 121: terms essay
The Constitution of New Zealand unlike most countries is not entrenched and is also not supreme law, which means there is no single document outlining the entire constitution. The New Zealand Constitution is made up of a large number of different Statutes, however this does not account for all our constitutional material. Part of our constitution is governed by convention, these ‘traditions’, while not legally binding help to restrain the executive. The Executive is made of the Prime minster, ministers, government agencies and state owned enterprises. This essay will discuss to what extent Constitutional conventions are more important than statutes in restraining the Executive in New Zealand
Statutes make up the bulk of the constitution and while not compiled in a single document, they are written. According to Wests Encyclopaedia of American law (2008), “Statute is a written law passed by the legislature. Statutes set forth general propositions of law that courts apply to specific situations. A statute may forbid a certain act, direct a certain act, make a declaration”. Statutes are the law that because of the rule of Law both the Government and the Public must adhere to.
Constitutional Conventions are
…show more content…
Statutes and constitutional conventions are both key inhibitors preventing complete parliamentary supremacy. Parliamentary supremacy is the idea that Parliament can (in theory) pass any law they want to. This is considered one of the key factors in our parliamentary structure. However at the same time we actively try to inhibit and restrain Parliament by the means of checks and balances. While one of the main forms of this is the separation of power between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary and idea proposed by Montesquieu in The Spirit of Laws 1748. The other way this is mitigated is through the use of Statues and Constitutional
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.
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
The greatest legal document ever to be written is the United States Constitution. The constitution is ultimately a series of power compromises and is the foundation of common law. Merriam-Webster defines common law as " the area of law that has to do with the subject matter and with the interpretation and construction of constitutions or that deals with the nature and organization of government" (Constitutional Law). Cases involving constitutional law are heard by the United States Supreme Court where judgment is based on the U.S. Constitution. Of the various different articles seated in the constitution, three of them describe a system of checks and balances dividing the national government into three branches. This is also called separation of powers (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson 57).
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.
Australia became an independent nation on January 1, 1901 when the British Parliament passed certain legislation allowing the six Australian colonies to regulate their own authority as part of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia was established, and remains as, a constitutional monarchy, meaning that it was founded with a written constitution, and that the Australian head of state is also head of the Commonwealth (Queen Elizabeth II.) The Australian Constitution was initially drafted by several men in the 1890’s though it wasn't passed by the British Parliament until 1900 as part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. By definition the Australian Constitution is a composition
It should grant and limit different powers and responsibilities to the different levels of government and set guidelines for making policy. It should not include specific policies or statutes (Brown et al. 59). Excessive details should be reserved for statutory laws. Writing solutions to specific problems in a constitution causes the need for frequent amending as new issues arise (Brown et al. 59).
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.
Constitution is a set of rules which details a country’s system of government (Elliott & Quinn 2009, p. 2). Most of the time, the constitution is a written document, but in Britain, the constitution cannot be found written down in one document, and is known as an unwritten constitution. There are three basic fundamental principles of Britain’s unwritten constitutional tradition which are:
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
The decision for Australia to adopt the Federal system was on the principle of which the State’s governments wanted to keep their power. For this reason there was the separation of powers between the newly formed Commonwealth government and the existing State governments. At a constitutional level, there are rulings in which the powers are separated, these rulings due to disputes have slightly changed since 1901. These changes all fell towards the one government, the Commonwealth (Federal) government. However this was not just a landslide event, the Constitution of Australia set up this imbalance of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. We will explore this further in the points discussed later in this essay.
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.
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
Historically the prerogative was exercised by the monarchy, the majority of powers are now used by ministers, and very few remained the personal preserve of the sovereign. The extent to which the judiciary and the legislature are able to regulate the exercise of prerogative powers by the executive has increased. However, there are still some who are concerned by the lack of control that can be exerted by the other constitutional bodies.
One of the features of the Australian constitution is that is it structured in a way that in theory reflects the rule of law. This doctrine, the separation of powers, doctrine is assumed to be a fair structure of government as its principles suggest that power does not lie with one branch, but is spread out amongst the three (legislative, executive and judicial.
This essay aims to look at the Separation of Powers in the UK Constitution. The relationship between the three categories of public power-legislative, executive and the judicial. The overlaps that are present with the individuals operating in the various organs and their functions in the institutions. Reasons why the separation of powers is an important factor in the UK Constitution. Finally, the significance of changes made to the doctrine over the years.