Many of the court’s decisions were controversial, and critics have charged that justices/ judges have written their own values into the constitution. There are several restrictions on the exercise of judicial review courts may strike down unconstitutional laws only when cases are brought to them. In the absence of a case, judges may not issue advisory opinion – that is, they may not say what they think a constitutional rule means or whether a law is invalid, moreover not every case presents the possibility of judicial review. The parties seeking review must have “standing”- that is, they must be the ones actually affected by the law in question. Also, the dispute must be “ripe” – a person may not ask a court to void a law if it has not yet been applied to that person.
English law works on a common law system, as opposed to a civil law system, which relies on statute and certain texts. The origins of common law is highly debated but one explanation is verbally agreed on. Common law is an invention of the English courts: the Kings Bench, the Court of Common Pleas and the Exchequer so as to ensure, as remains the case today, that there were laws that superceded the decisions of the lesser courts. Judges create the common law by delivering written judgments about the cases before them. If, for example, Magistrates’ Courts across England and Wales were able to make and follow their own precedent, this would create a huge variation in local and regional customs that could mean that local regimes are barely recognisable from one another.
Judicial Tyranny is interpreted by the judiciary and such it can be the case that judge can legislate from the bench. , Another significant disadvantage, the parliamentary sovereignty would be effectively abolished. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can make or unmake or even amend any law it wishes. United Kingdom will lose a massive privilege if someday decide to codified it constitution. Last but not least, a codified constitution would give the judiciary a political point of view witch it will require from the ultimately supreme court to form judgements of issues with political nature that should be dealt by the politicians them
It examines what the Government is doing, creates new laws, retains the power to tax fixation and it is where the concerns of the day are debated. It is bicameral, consisting of an upper house called the House of Lords and a lower house called the House of Commons. 2. Parliament History We can trace back the origins of the British Parliament to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 8th century. There were two different meetings: on one side the Witan with clergymen, barons and people chosen by the king, and on the other Moots were local meetings of lords, sheriffs, bishops and commoners.
Thus, it seems pertinent to mention here the flexibility which they afford the British constitution; because, these rules of constitutional behavior; e.g. Doctrine of ministerial responsibility; remain unenforceable in the court of law, as a result, they can be ridden off as easily as they were adopted. These conventions, coupled with the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, allows parliament to, by a simple majority, bring about constitutional amendments, with ease. However, critics have been mindful of this constant transformation to the constitution, and W. Bagehot in his works famous said that “if you are always altering your house, it is a sign that either that you have a bad house, or that you have an excessively restless disposition – there is something wrong somewhere” . On the other hand, Vernon points out that, observers of the British constitution, discovered the key to the success of the British government, lies with its triumph in combining “freedom with stability” .
However, two of the most important regulations of the Britain constitution are known because it is much based on Parliamentary Supremacy (means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights) and the division of powers (meaning that Parliament, as opposed to a written constitution, it is the highest source of law in the United kingdom and that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary powers would be divided among themselves. Additionally, the possibly existence of only a few other countries in the world that does not have a written, along with new change of constitution such as the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Constitutional Change Act of 2005 have rekindled the debate on whether or not the United Kingdom should write its constitution . This essay will start by introducing some of the proposal that have been shown and forwarded for a codified constitution. It will then argue that even though it is
2. Judicial Review can be used in respect of all central and state laws, orders and the ordinances of the executive. It can also be used in the constitutional amendments 3. The limitation of the judicial review is that it cannot be used in the respect of the laws which are included in the 9th Schedule of our Indian Constitution. 4.
Conventions are non-legal rules that impose obligations upon those that operate the constitution. In essence they are guidelines that dictate constitutional behaviour and prescribe ways in which things ought to be done. Conventions can be found in constitutions both written and unwritten but it is within the framework of the unwritten constitution, such as that found in the United Kingdom, that constitutional conventions become extremely important. While conventions are non-legal rules that are not enforceable by a court of law, they nevertheless play an intricate role in the proper and cohesive functioning of any constitution. The constitution of a country is a living, breathing organism, one that evolves with each generation and the assumption of power by new governments.
Before the Norman Conquest, different rules and customs applied in different regions of the country. But after 1066 monarchs began to unite both the country and its laws using the king’s court. Justices created a common law by drawing on customs across the country and rulings by monarchs. These rules developed organically and were rarely written down. Through the colonization footprints, British introduced and applied Common law to the colonies.
In other words these are the powers that rule the United Kingdom until today. These separation of powers as a lot of philosophers and specialists have told before is very important for the simple reason that Montesquieu mentioned very clearly “When legislative power is united with executive powers in a single person or in a single body there is no liberty, because one can fear that the same monarch or senate that makes tyrannical laws will execute them tyrannically”. Although these statements, we can see that we do not have a strict separation between the three functions, as Bagehot said in his writings “the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers”, with cabinet being responsible to