Looking through the history, parliament enacted the law such as Septennial Act to alter its terms of office, abolish and reconstitute itself as a different body, change its own powers and the succession of throne. Parliament may legislate with retrospective effect. For example, in the case of Burmah Oil Company v Lord Advocate (1965), where the House of Lords had awarded compensation for the destruction of oil installations in wartime, the government speedily introduced legislation nullifying the effect of the decision under the War Damage Act1965. Parliament may also legislate with extra-territorial effect. Sir Ivor Jennings (1959) said, metaphorically: parliament can legislate to ban smoking on the street of Paris, parliament can legally make a man into woman and Sir Leslie Stephens (1882): parliament could legislate to have a blue eyed babies put to death.
However, it depends on the confidence of parliament to retain power. If they lose, the majority and confidence of parliament, the government can be removed and a general elections are called. In order to create a majority in the house, the government can be formed from a single party, or from the coalition of two or more parties. Generally, in a parliamentary system, the government comes up with the laws and parliaments votes them in. Governmental opposition usually do not introduce new bills into parliament.
Based on A.V Dicey’s theory on parliamentary sovereignty, one of the main features of the legislative organs of the country has unlimited law making power. This means that the legislature or the parliament may enact law or amend them without subject, period and location limit. This is because the legislature is not an entity created by the constitution. Thus, the power of the legislature is not subject to any limitations. In the case of Mortensen v Peters , it illustrated that the sovereignty of parliament is unlimited geographically.
Constitution is necessary for the coordinating of a state as it involves the fundamental rules and regulations in which a state exists . However the Britain constitution involves a written foundation such as the statutes. It is one of the few that is not written down in a single document . As an idea by Blick, it is due to the absence of a serious moment in the history, such as a revolution or an independence that has made Britain transformed the constitution to the level codifying it. 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.
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. If the constitution says that other branches of the government have discretion to deal with an issue, the courts will not review such so called political questions. e.g., the courts have not reviewed such so called political questions. For example, the courts have no authority to overturn the President’s decision to pardon a felon since the constitution provides that the right to pardon is an executive
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
Besides, the freedom of speech to which Article 105 (1) and (2) refer, would be available to a Member of Parliament when he attends the session of Parliament. The only limitation arises from the words in Parliament, which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament. Once it was proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from proceedings in any court. In P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State it was held that the bribe givers can claim no immunity but bribe takers stand on different footing and the member who took the bribe and did not vote can also not claim immunity.
As previously mentioned, the ultimate power lies with the Dáil, as laid out in the Constitution. The Seanad’s strongest power in the legislative process is to delay it. In regards to non-financial matters, which include all areas with the exception of a “money bill”, the definition of which is set out in Article 22, the Seanad may initiate a Bill. However, it must then be considered by the Dáil. There is a time limit set, by the end of which, the Bill will be deemed to be passed by both Houses, under Article 23.1.2.
when choosing they look not just to the person but to the group , and even that the head of the state is lack of power but still the prime minster less important than him . the ability to judge and change the government give the parliamentary the chance to change it when it's not doing its job . The democracy in letting the people choose the president which let them feel that they have the choice . that the president have a stabled period of time in his position they can't change him till its finish unlike the other governmental positions under this system . the separation of the power , which give the president the ability to make a quick decisions .
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA Meaning Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review the actions taken by the legislature and the executive organ of the government and decide whether or not the actions taken by the legislature and the executive are in conformity with the Constitution. If the enactments done by the legislature and the executive are found unconstitutional then the judiciary has the power to declare those acts illegal, unconstitutional and invalid ( null and void) after which they cannot be enforced by the government. Origin of Judicial Review The judicial review is one of the very important contributions of the USA to the political theory. The origin of the judicial review has been result of a judicial decision and the continuance