The parliament was given its authority by the voting system within the UK which gave the parliament legitimacy to make, amend or abolish laws. The UK then seen the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts that have further reduced the powers of the HOL and concentration of power in the HOL and its executive the prime minister. If the HOL introduces a law and the majority of the HOL agrees the law will be passed. The UK has an internal convention that it will go through steps to allow a royal assent of the law however this does not have to be followed as it is not law, again this shows the parliament as having absolute power/sovereignty. This change of powers sees sovereignty shift from the monarch to parliament.
The United Kingdom’s constitution, because it is unwritten, relies mainly on two constitutional principles: parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. There is however what appears to be a “tension” between those two. On the one hand, orthodox legal theory has always said that courts in the United Kingdom are subordinate to the Parliament, which is said to be sovereign. As illustrated by Dicey’s quote, “Parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament” . As a consequence, courts have no power whatsoever to review and declare statutes passed by the Parliament invalid.
‘Do Judges make Law? ’This is one of the most debated topics in the world of Law. Presently, according to the laws of the parliament, Judges are only allowed to uphold the laws passed by the parliament and not to create or make any new laws or whatsoever. But in some cases or circumstances, Judges have been known to amend and change the laws according to the situation if the judges see fit. So does that count as making a new law?
In the Constitution, there is no mention for the freedom of press, assembly, religion, or speech. Since the listed freedoms are not mentioned in the Constitution, the government is free to exploit and violate them. Americans fought a war for the security of their fundamental rights, and they don’t want a constitution that would place those rights in danger of loss.The Federalists would say that a bill of rights is not needed because The Constitution is the ultimate protection of the people, and the people are the sovereigns. This can be countered by the fact that, in the Constitution, there is no mention of the freedom of religion speech, press, etc. National government is free to violate these
This assignment is to focus on identifying “the different roles of ministers in giving guidance and exercising control on their respective departments”. The case study will outline the definitions of a minister, the duties, functions and powers applied in their respective departments. Discussed will be the features of the prime-ministerial government as well as the ministerial responsibilities. Furthermore, the paper will explain the role of the political executive in the provincial and local sphere of government as well as the structure and form of executive power found in parliamentary executives. 1.
But in the end procedural law is a stem of a form of substantial law. Substantive Law is defined by the legal relationship of people with other people or between them and the state. (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Shedd, 2016, p. 14) Substantive law is used to “write law that states the rights, duties and liabilities of the citizens and collective bodies.” (Surbhi,
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.
If Parliament has passed a law violating the rights, it is automatically declared as void. However, freedoms are restricted in the public interest on grounds of national security, to preserve public order, to protect public health, to maintain moral standards, to secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or to meet the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society. The United States Supreme Court has qualified the rights in the constitution over the years. Any statement of rights is not absolute and must of necessity be subject to limitations. The right of free speech does not extend to sedition, slander, defamations or false statement, obscenity, and child pornography.
A Constitutional Perspective on The Preservation of Liberty To establish which amendment in the Bill of Rights is the most influential to the preservation of liberty, one must first determine the true meaning of the word liberty. The Oxford dictionary defines liberty as “The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behaviour, or political views.” Not only is this one of the core values ingrained into the base of our American culture, but it is also one of the main characteristics of a successful community (“First Amendment.”) Many societies argue that citizens do not have basic rights, the first amendment does the best job at protecting the nation's rights from the government by giving individuals freedom of speech, religion, and freedom of petition. The First Amendment has five freedoms guaranteed for the American people’s such as the right to religion, speech, and petition. This is arguably the most important amendment to liberty, and a person’s right to free will. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
They argued that although it claimed to have consulted the people of Canada it had not consulted them and therefore should not have been passed. The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing they could do once the Act was passed, it was too late.” This case shows the sovereignty of the parliament, the judicial council does not interfere without acts already passed by the parliament. Judicial review is not effective in England and wales likewise the judicial council of Ghana before 1992 were not sovereign the judges were too scared to confront the executive and legislative arms of government, this can be seen in RE:Akoto case, where the judges said they have no jurisdiction in decided the case. But after the 1992 constitution of Ghana, the constitution gave the judges power to review decisions made by the parliament and invalidate actions or acts that were not inconsistence with the