The doctrine of precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis, which means to stand by things decided. It might be true that the sovereignty of Parliament is more complete in England than anywhere else. However, does it really mean that the rigidity of doctrine of precedent in this country is of no particular importance? Moreover, can we actually say that the doctrine of precedent is rigid? The main aim of my work is to consider the principles of statutory interpretation and judicial precedent and analyse if judges had intervened with Parliament’s law making role.
The rights of the people may be enumerated in peace time and withdrawn in times of conflict, providing a greater degree of governmental control over the country. This is all a result of the uncodified constitution, and by extension, parliamentary sovereignty. However, the lack of a codified constitution and the resulting dearth of constitutional supremacy have problems of their own. Albert Dicey’s writings on parliamentary sovereignty encapsulate some of the greatest issues with the uncodified nature of the constitution. Dicey reduced the issue of parliamentary sovereignty to three primary principles , each of which demonstrate the potential for constitutional crisis and instability in the United Kingdom.
The Constitution of the United States was a document that established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. It was signed on September seventeenth, 1787 and used to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Magna Carta was a document that established the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law. It was signed in 1215, issued by King John of England. The Petition of Right was signed in 1627 and was written by Parliament as a way to stop King Charles I from overreaching authority.
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
Although, the creators of the Constitution were influenced by many previous documents the most influential documents were the Articles of Confederation, the English Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. These documents limited state power, allowed for government criticism, and protected citizen’s individual rights. The failure of the Articles of Confederation created the desire of a stronger federal government and limited state power. The Articles allowed the states to raise
Differences between Parliamentary sovereignty and Constitutional supremacy The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament is often presented as a unique legal arrangement without parallels in comparative constitutional law. By giving unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament, it appears to rule out any comparison between the Westminster Parliament and the United States Congress or the Malaysian Constitution, whose powers are carefully limited by their respective constitutions. Parliamentary sovereignty is thus seen as a unique feature and a result of the unwritten constitution. If parliamentary sovereignty is to be a legal doctrine, it must rely on a list of powers that belong to parliament as an institution.
Abraham Lincoln, a famous eloquent American president once quotes that “Those who deny freedom to others does not deserve it themselves” (L.Pierce) In perspective of this extremely truthful quote, I proceed to define the essential words in title as indicated by the Oxford English Dictionary that Democracy can be best define as the Government by the people that is, an arrangement of Government in which all the populace of the state or a country are involves in making decisions about its affairs ordinarily by voting to choose a representatives to a parliament assembly. In other words, it is a system where the choice and the mode of governance are dictated by individuals through a few set of persons elected by the individuals to speak or represent them. Incorporating this definition, the title which is a direct question can be revised as: Is Democracy the best form of Government? To begin with, in case I am to supply a direct response to the main Question, my honest answer would be insistent yes. This is not intended to sound true alone, but I would like to give fitting reasons why I think the correct answer to the Question is to the affirmative.
Even though the confederation only lasted from 1781-1789, it was still seen to be valuable with its belief that sovereignty belongs to every state. After the Confederation ended in 1789, the U.S. Constitution took place bringing the states together as a whole. While these two documents have the needs of the nation in mind, they both do have quite a bit of a difference as well. The Articles of the Confederation was the first form of government created by the Continental Congress, which developed an alliance between the thirteen states. Congress was a single-chamber legislature which allowed for each state to possess the same amount of authority no matter the size of the community.
This was a time of social uncertainty as James 1 succeeded Queen Elizabeth I on the English throne. Due to this periodization overlap I will call this timeframe the Renaissance period. Unlike Othello, GM has been interpreted in different ways, readings ranging from sexual, biblical and fairy tale, to even a didactic allegory. Thus, historical context for both texts is vital to any scholarship reading them. Kirk agrees with my view that historical context is essential and argues
Despite their differing views both parties agree that in order for a country to have good governance some changes to the must come in play. The radical view holds that the Caribbean countries should get rid for the British Parliament system and adopt a more presidential system like that of the United States while the moderates view state that instead of changing countries should make changes to the current system in order for it to suit the needs of the people. In my view the moderated approach to constitution reform would be more appropriate for Caribbean countries. Argument against the present system lies between the abuse of power and the increasingly high level of political corruption along with other aspect of the handed down system such as the high court of appeal therefore making amendment to the areas of concern will be much better than changing the system itself. Changing the system can be more detrimental to a countries as the new system may not be effective to that countries political culture, policies and procedures regarding trading and the overall relationship with other countries.