British Paramountcy Essay

was founded and why the separation from Great Britain happened. This was written to give

The Supremacy of the monarchy is the monarchical state of being superior more than all others in power which refers to the Bristish Law’s called Magna Carta, common law and precedent. The Magna Carta is a charter that King John of England was forced to seal and sign the Magna Carta, otherwise he would be considered shameful and unjust. Magna Carta is still one of the most influential documents that is a part of our law which exhibits the idea of liberation of citizens. King Henry II developed a system of travelling judges (circuit judges) who would visit villages, resolve conflicts, heard cases and created new laws which is now considered common law. According to the textbook, common law has three meanings. It refers to the law that comes from Britain, it means a law that is common is all… law that applies to all subjects in the land and it also means law that is based on the best decision of judges. Common law is the law that is the same for every individual and should be obeyed by everyone equally and ethically. Common law is also seen as a precedent because the past decisions of the judges were recorded and were used for alike cases or conflicts. In short, the Supremacy of The Monarchy developed from the Magna Carta, common law, court system and precedent that helped our Canadian law develop to make it

Countries declare independence for a variety of reasons. Some countries were motivated to gain freedom because they believed that they were not being treated fair enough. Another reason some countries wanted freedom is because other countries that previously declared independence inspired these countries to do so. When countries declare independence those countries are doing it for different reasons.

In cases where both the subjects and the monarch are happy with shared views on absolute ruling properly, the ruler should first unify his people to have the same goals as him which is to help their country be successful powerfully and financially. If the absolute monarch uses his power to his advantage, then the the subjects would not share the same view as their monarch, because they are living in poverty and unfair conditions, whereas the king is living in luxury and enjoying all the food they please. The subjects' view depend greatly on how they live their life, they might want everyone to live equally with enough food and money to get by, and to get rid of the gap between the powerful and the powerless. The rulers and the subjects have one ideal in common which is to help their country expand and prosper. Both the ruler and the subjects' views are so different since they are leading such contrasting lives, but a common ground they have is their country. They want their country to be great and powerful and they both hold much pride in living and calling it their

Britain, to begin with, has no written constitution due to the country’s own constitutional structure’s stability. It remains uncodified, yet it’s legal sources stem from Acts of parliament, European Union law, equity and common law,. Therefore the varying powers of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law will be considered against these sources.

The king certainly has absolute power; he demonstrates it through punishment and rewards for disobeying or obeying his authority. He is the distributor of wealth, etc. So he can just as easily take it away. Although, you are allowed to think for yourself as well but it must be thought out extensively before said or done. If not and it has damaged you or the kingdom, it comes attached with serious consequences.

As any enlightened despot would tell you, an enlightened ruler should remain absolute. Being in complete control of one’s country and governing body was essential to being labeled as an absolute despot. Document 6 reads that in Russia, the Queen Catherine

They “solemnly publish and declare, that these United colonies are, and of right ought to be free and Independent States; that they are absolved from the allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and

Imagine a country coming into yours and ruining your environment. Killing your people. Taking your land- your power. Pushing you and the ones you love into starvation and poverty. In reality, this is what imperialism was for India when the British had gained control over them.

Colonization can be looked on as both positive and negative, however it is mainly negative. The impact of British colonialism in India was ultimately negative because, it robbed India of freedom, left many jobless, and gave India no responsibility of their own government. First, India was robbed of its freedom. One way India was robbed of its freedom is India had no control over its resources where the resources went. “India became an agricultural colony of industrial England.”

It can be argued that Prime ministers are almost omnipotent in the political system in the UK, this is due to the shear variety of powers in-which the prime minister holds, and the prerogatives that are taken advantage by the prime minister. However, checks on powers in the UK means that the prime minister is not as power as they appear, moreover, they are not separable from the UK political system, henceforth, they are controlled and limited within the system they are part of, thus, more often than not, prime ministers are less powerful then sometimes claimed.

Thomas Paine has constructed a highly organized criticism of Monarchy and hereditary succession that begins with questioning the very foundation of monarchies and progresses to an explanation of why remaining tied to England would be hurting America politically and economically. He appeals the reader’s logic, starting with the origin of government. Paine argues that fundamentally, a monarchy is ineffective because appointing a man as the king is making the assumption that he is able to make better decisions than the citizens collectively; he needs to be very informed about the public and make involved decisions even though the king is at the disadvantage of being isolated from the common man. The public and the king are supposed to be interrelated and cooperative with information going back and forth between the two, but instead, it creates a dichotomy; the government is very flawed, not only in execution but also is conception. By starting with the very foundation of government, his argument is compelling already. Instead of arguing about the king specifically, he is addressing a larger issue that people cannot ignore. His next unique point is that no kingdom can be justified or

tain power. The minor details do not matter. The importance lies in the fact that in a monarchy

More describes the monarch’s responsibilities in general terms from which more specific duties can be inferred. He says that the king has been charged with making the lives of his people more comfortable, protecting them from injustice, insuring that they are fed, and preventing crime through sound administration. Since these duties are presented in contrast with the king who keeps his people poor by confiscating their property, it is reasonable to infer that More expects his king to protect their private property. To protect his people from injustice, the king must provide for a system of laws and adjudication to resolve conflicts. In addition, in providing the example of the good king of Happiland who " . . . would ensure that there was always enough money in circulation for ordinary purposes of exchange . . .." More suggests that the monarch should be responsible for promoting commerce.

Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the