The work is devoted to the discussion of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and its role and possibility of adopting the constitution, which will be entrenched against future alterations and will be capable of effectively limiting the executive power and the power of legislatures. …
The urgent question is whether the existing doctrine may assist in adopting the constitution, which would be entrenched against the future amendments and would effectively limit the executive and legislative power in Britain. In this connection it should be mentioned, that despite the fact, that the doctrine is supposed to be the basic principle of the British constitutionalism, it has been recently admitted, that the doctrine becomes more and more inappropriate and unacceptable in the constitutional context, changing because of the British membership in the European Union, higher accents at the human rights and the transition of the legislative rights to the regional legislatures. Despite the absence of the fixed constitutional frames in the written form, which would limit the British Parliament' activity, it has long been admitted that it is impossible to take any political measures for limiting legislative or executive powers. However, it is essential to note, that the British Parliament is now more limited in its rights not on the judicial, but on the political reasons, and the sphere in which it is not able to implement its unlimited powers is increasing.
'When Dicey published The Law of the Constitution in 1885 he defined parliamentary sovereignty as meaning that,
'Parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.' (Elliott, 2002)
Simultaneously, it is essential to note, that any constitution without future amendments can hardly be adopted in the light of the existing Doctrine. The possible proof for such assumption may lie in the explanation as for the role of courts in the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, which shows that the courts are not able to protect the absurd laws from being adopted, if the process of passing it through the both houses of Parliament has been transparent and legal. 'It has therefore been established that Dicey's doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is, in theory, true. Parliament, it seems, can make or unmake any law it wishes and no person or body can set aside or override such legislation. However, whether this is actually true in practice remains to be seen.' On the other hand, it is also notable, that when the judges find enough competence and ability to interpret the Parliamentary statutes and acts, it hardly serves for the benefit of the society, as the laws and acts are usually written in such ambiguous wording as to adopt its interpretation to the specific situation; though taking into account the ...
Cite this document
(“The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/politics/293010-the-doctrine-of-parliamentary-sovereignty
(The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty Essay)
“The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/politics/293010-the-doctrine-of-parliamentary-sovereignty.
The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is entrenched within the British constitution as essential in the operation of the separation of powers and the leading decision in R v Jordan highlighted the point that the judiciary was bound by Parliament and could not challenge Parliamentary authority when interpreting and applying legislation.
1 Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that courts are required to interpret national legislation in such a way as to ensure that they are consistent with human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.2 However, in practice Parliament seemingly ceded parliamentary sovereignty relative to Convention rights to the judiciary.
In the initial stages of democracy in Britain, liberty was at grave risk due to monarchical power.1 As a consequence of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Parliament was empowered to enact or rescind any law whatsoever.
This means that the monarch could and cannot overrule the parliament in its decisions. However, there are limitations to this supremacy. For example, according to Dicey, the general rule prevails that the laws that the Parliament has already passed do not bind the Parliament or its successors; they can alter them to suit different circumstance1.
The Treaty on European Union (Maastricht) 1992 involved the creation of the European Union. UK incorporated of the EC law into domestic law by European Communities Act 1972. By virtue of ss .2 (1), 2(2), and 2(4) EC law was directly incorporated.1
Art. 221 provide that the Court of Justice will consist of fifteen judges.
n when it comes to language, norms, culture, politics and religion however; its identity first as England then Britain and then United Kingdom was formed against Europe itself. (Jones. Pp 171. 2007) United Kingdom is a reluctant partner of European Union as EC law contradicts
The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is part of English law and for many years, the rule that the “Parliament can do anything except bind its successor”2 has been a well accepted principle. According to Wade (1996), the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is an
Law researchers initially pronounced the principle of sovereignty in the mid-19th century. Nonetheless, in the post-war UK times past, particularly the most recent history, the practice of parliamentary sovereignty has been subjected to immense
8 Pages(2000 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty for FREE!