attacks by its own citizens and possibly other existing governments. In addition, the US are able to pass laws that are not well suited to their constitution. This is not the case in the UK, as the Supreme Court ensures that parliament do not pass laws that are incompatible to the constitution as seen case of AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate , Lord Reed held: ‘Westminster can be described as sovereign: its powers were conferred by an Act of Parliament, and those powers, being defined, are limited. Yet, as held in R v Home Sec ex p Anderson per Lord Steyn: “Our constitution has, however, never embraced a rigid doctrine of separation of powers. The relationship between the legislature and the executive is close" .
The current makeup of the British constitution is an uncodified, flexible set of rules that are created by Parliament. The core argument that lies beneath the question of whether Britain’s constitution should be codified is whether flexibility is preferred over security. With current contemporary challenges such as Britain’s impending ‘Brexit’ from the European Union and the devolution that follows, the principle of codifying the British constitution would enable it to better meet those challenges. However, the execution of codifying the British constitution could potentially create greater challenges for Britain in an increasingly unpredictable time. In current times of instability, both nationally and internationally, codification of the
It has saved lives from the mistakes made before this amendment. The judge has the opportunity to assign legal punishments and penalties, but the purpose of this amendment was too protect them from the preposterous punishments like the excessive use of the death penalty for cases not necessary. The history of the amendment actually dates back to the roots of the amendment which was used in the Bill of Rights in 1689. The new amendment made in 1791 was a replica in a way of what was in the Bill of Rights. The practical use for this amendment was obviously needed because the punishments used back in those early times was much more aggressive and cruel.
Statutory interpretation Statutory interpretation is when the bill or the law of parliament is tested upon a case. The law should be clear and concise so that everyone understands its purpose. It may have been clear when it was checked by the parliament but judges applying it to an actual case uncovers its flaws, making it troublesome in future cases and conveys what needs to be amended. Over the course of many years, the English law gradually started to develop, and implemented three different rules of interpretation in the likes of the: • Literal rule • Golden rule • Mischief rule Literal rule Literal rules should be used in its standard form and words that it naturally states without adding anything on to it. It simply should be an
For example, the Terrorism Act 2006, which changed the maximum duration that someone could be detained for without being charged to 28 days, can be see not take precedence over the rule of law by undermining it. Furthermore due to the UK not having a written constitution, there is no document that can tell us what powers government has or, more importantly, doesn't have, and no UK judgement specifically discredits the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. One must also consider that Parliament has influence over the rue of law. Even though the rule of law means to establish clarity of what is and isn't allowed in the eyes of the law, Parliament can pass new legislation to alter this, and hence influence the rule of law. An example of this is the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 which nullified the defendants right to know the identity of his witness by replacing it with a regime where witness anonymity orders could be used if circumstances allowed or required them to be
By participating in the legal system, we may endeavour to formulate a link between our own unique beliefs and the world in which we live. Evidently, a just sense of legality is a potent prerequisite for change, enabling society to continue its quest for universal equality and justice. Aristotle once stated that "even when laws have been written down, they ought not to remain unaltered". Throughout my A level studies I have become increasingly attracted to the study of Law and wish to pursue a degree in this subject to reinforce and develop my knowledge and understanding of the legal system. Studying law has provided me with a solid grounding in the English Legal system.
During these tough times, families turned to crime in order to make fast money. The 18th amendment was supposed to eliminate the “evil” in human society, but in reality crime increased and led to a major downfall in society. Organized Crime in the 1920s paved the way
The approach taken by the court of reading these terms as per their dictionary definition made it simple to understand the statute. After reading the reason given by the court for its decision now when we read the statute it becomes easy to understand that the statue itself is very expansive. I feel that the reason why the court did not go into the limitations and conditions of the Patent laws is because the legislature itself did not express the limitations while framing the statute. The legislature did not accidently made the statute expansive rather the language of the patent laws were such that it aimed to promote science and art. The court did not limit its decision to only genetically engineered living bacteria it tried to bring his invention into the realm of these wide terms “manufacture” and “composition of matter”.
Contrary to this, in the UK, the people in a referendum have failed to formally ratify the ‘constitution’ which can mean it lacks legitimacy. As well as this, unlike in the normal constitution, the laws of the constitution in the United Kingdom have not acclaimed any higher legal status than any of the other laws. The final characteristic which Ridley discusses in his article is the fact that constitutions should be entrenched and therefore the laws of a constitution should be difficult or even impossible to alter them. However, in the UK this is not the case because of parliamentary sovereignty as historically the laws in the UK could not by law be entrenched. For example when the Supreme Court was created to take over from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which was the highest domestic court.
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” .