Assess The Role Of Parliament In The Institution Of Government

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void. Courts are also aware of popular opinion, and are unlikely to “support significant

the importance that citizens should have “an effective and equal voice in the decisions of the political communities to which they belong” (Close & Croci, 2018, Pg. 195). The Canadian government form of democracy is based on the Eurocentric idea from Athens’ democracy, which has implicated onto many aspects of our legal system today. Canada’s current system of governing is based on Representative government, which signifies the “citizens [ability] to elect representatives [into] the legislature” to make decisions on the behalf of the political community (Close & Croci, 2018, Pg. 199). Furthermore, the importance of Canada’s representative is that it provides citizens with important advantages such as accountability, responsiveness and transparency.

The House of Commons is an iconic image of Canadian representative democracy. It is a body of elected Members of Parliament (MPs) through a system known as a single-member plurality. These MPs get together Monday to Friday and debate about new policies and policy reforms. On one side is the governing party which includes the Prime Minister and their cabinet along the front row of seats. Directly across would be the opposition, which consists of the other major parties that had obtained seats in the house of commons. Beyond the front seats are other members of the parties which do not have specialized roles in the cabinet.

Corruption is the abuse of power for the purpose of getting personal advantage which easily adjusts to circumstance of incorrect conduct by justice workers or of staff involved in decisions giving support to the justice system. Justice system define judicial corruption any act through which workers in the justice system are negatively impacted that affects the independence of judicial actions for the resolve of obtaining an unlawful benefit for themselves or other person. Judicial corruption refers to corruption related improper of judges, through receiving or giving bribes, not proper sentencing of convicted criminals, bias in the hearing and judgement of arguments and other such misconduct, any act through which workers in the justice system are negatively influenced that affects the impartiality of judicial proceedings for the purpose of obtaining an unlawful benefit for themselves or other persons. There are two types of such negative influences upon justice:

Holmes in “The Path Of The Law” has taken a pragmatic approach in understanding and evaluating law. Holmes’s arguments had a great impact in the formulation of the American legal realism. With his arguments on eradication of ‘naturals rights’ and ‘morals’ from law, Holmes helped the American legal realism reach where it is now.

The most general explanation of the state is given by Simon Roberts. He describes the sovereign state as a social phenomenon that consists of four key elements, namely “a presence of a supreme authority, ruling over a defined territory, who is recognized as having power to make decisions in matters

The constitution of United Kingdomis reflected to be one of the vibrant constitutions in the present-day. Its flawless structure based on the fact that it’s un-codified is the key for parliamentary sovereignty to be superlative. This deemed the parliament to be the supreme law maker. Contemporary criticisms have been made whether Parliamentary sovereignty is still active and whether it could be applicable to the UK constitution. Many linger with the vision that the effects of the EU, the Human Rights Act 1998 and further, have resulted in curtailing the powers of the parliament. To quote Justine Mitchell;

Holmes in “The Path Of The Law” has taken a pragmatic approach in understanding and evaluating law. Holmes’s arguments had a great impact in the formulation of the American legal realism. With his arguments on eradication of ‘naturals rights’ and ‘morals’ from law, Holmes helped the American legal realism reach where it is now.

Parliament is supreme is creating the law and no authority, not even the courts, are above it. In the case Pepper v Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032 House of Lords, the issue was whether a teacher at a private school had to pay tax on the perk he received in the form of reduced school fees. The House of Lords departed from Davis v Johnson and took a purposive approach to interpretation holding that Hansard may be referred to and the teacher was not required to pay tax on the perk he received. However, this decision did not affect the supremacy of the parliament. From 1688, the supremacy of the parliament over the Crown was established and can be seen in the Bill of Rights 1688(9).

The idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty extensively implies that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law, and no individual is permitted to override or put aside the law of Parliament. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has total sovereignty, significance in comparison to all other government organizations (counting any official or legal bodies as they may exist). Besides, it suggests that the legislative body may change or nullify any former legislative acts. Parliamentary sovereignty diverges from most thoughts of legal audit, where a court may topple enactment considered unlawful. Particular examples of parliamentary sovereignty exist in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Power/Resource balances: the imbalances of power between stakeholders are usually a noticeable problem in collaborative governance (Gray, 1989; Short &Winter, 1999; Susskind &Cruikshank, 1987; Tett, Crowther, & O’Hara, 2003; Warner, 2006). If some stakeholders do not have the capacity, competence, condition, or resources to participate in an equal position with other stakeholders, the collaborative governance process will be prone to manipulation by stronger actors. Therefore, if there are remarkable power/resource imbalances between stakeholders, such that influential stakeholders cannot participate in a meaningful way, then effective collaborative governance requires a dedication to a positive strategy of empowerment

One of the important of judiciary is it makes judgments on whether the actions taken by individuals or even by the government, is in accordance with law. Those who break the law can be arrested and brought to court to be judged as to whether the person is guilty or not. There are times when people can take action against the government including the governing body, the legislator, and the executive, but if they feel that these people have not abided by the law. So in such cases, it is for the judiciary to decide. The judiciary is a special body in our society which may not be criticized. In other countries they do criticized the judiciary, even the judgment made by the court. In fact, they write books against certain judgments and this is not considered as disrespecting the judiciary. But in Malaysia we find that if a judge says something, you are not supposed to criticize what he says. He’s sort of superior being whose pronouncement must be accepted without question. In a way this is good because at some stage somebody

Albert Venn Dicey stated that “The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this: namely 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 the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. […]

Parliamentarism, or a parliamentary government, is defined “as a system of government in which the executive, the government, is chosen by and is responsible to…the legislature.” (Gerring, Thacker and Moreno, 2005, p. 15) With this form of governmental control, many advantages and disadvantages arise, especially when this system is compared to the likes of ‘Presidential systems’ or even that of ‘Semi-presidential systems’. However, my aim within this essay is to, both, highlight to advantages of parliamentarism, and to also give my opinion as to why this system is better when compared and contrasted with the aforementioned systems.

Executive Branch is the oldest government in Malaysia, a place where government take place to bring up political issues or a place in the framework of federal representative democratic consultation monarchy and also a place that where exercised by the federal government of the 13 states. Executive Branch in Malaysia usually is to formulate and implement the policies in the country Executive brunch is chosen by the public through election and government will bring great impact on political system in Malaysia. Executive power is vested in the cabinet led by the Prime Minister and The Malaysian constitution stipulates that the Prime Minister must be member of the Lower House of parliment. The cabinet is chosen from among of both houses of Parliament