The basic tenets of these are based on the precepts of the Constitution itself.3 A. V. Dicey in 1885 summarized in his definition of the Rule of Law three areas are comprised: English law is what rules the citizens, not those that establish the law or choose to use it for their own advantage; there is an intrinsic understanding that all are equal under the law; and lastly that a constitution is a result of the laws of the land not the converse.4
One of the most contentious issues of debate concerning the Constitution remains the Sovereignty of Parliament. ...
ant role is that of a legitimizer of the government's actions,6 dating back to one of the founding documents of the British Constitution, the Magna Carta.7 Written in 1215, the Magna Carta laid the cornerstone of the Sovereignty of Parliament in that it limited the power of the monarch by written grant.8 Modern Parliament was formulated with the passage of the Act of Union 1707 with the joining of the Scotland under the federal rule of Britain while still allowing them some autonomy.9 The British Common Law constitution acknowledges the sovereighness of the monarchy; however, it affirms that likewise, as they must uphold the law, they are powerless to change it; that rests solely with Parliament.10 Several cases upholding its Sovereignty follow.
Pickin v British Railways Board  HL upheld the Supremacy of Parliament in that the judicial challenge of any act of Parliament is disallowed.11 Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation  DC held that the Sovereignty of Parliament is assured and no Parliament may bind another parliament.12 Similarly, Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health  held that the Sovereignty of Parliament was absolute and there is no judicial review allowed.13
The 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) has, some suggested, further weakened the Sovereignty of Parliament. Section 19 of this Act is particularly important in that without its full knowledge and clear understanding Parliament will not enact any legislation incompatible with the convention without its full knowledge and understanding. The Minister is required upon introducing a bill to Parliament to make a clear statement as to, in his opinion, the bill contradicts the convention. If he is unable to make a determination as to compatibility he is required to state