Codifying Conventions and Royal Prerogatives Essay

Political thinkers Rousseau, Locke and Montesqieu claimed that the powers of government should be limited, divided and checked. The principle is that there should be a division of government executive, legislative and judiciary powers into three separate arms or institutions that act separately and are independent of one another (members of one branch cannot be members of either of the other two). Australia’s constitution separated powers by delegating the legislative power to Federal parliament (s.1), executive power to the Governor General (s.61) and the Judiciary to the High Court (s.71). However due to Westminster conventions (adopted from the British system of parliament) commonly practiced by the Australia government, the members of the executive (cabinet) are selected from the legislative by the Prime Minister (going against the concept of having no cross-branched members). The PM (also Westminster convention) is not mentioned in the constitution and yet exercised executive power; for example in 2003 PM John Howard exercises (s.68) by sending troops to Iraq. The constitution also provides the executive with the power to appoint the High Court Judge (s.72) and thus is could be argued that the executive has power over the Judiciary in that sense; However the constitution actively safeguards the position of the Judiciary by stating the High Court Judge “Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the

One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s

Under the British constitution, parliament is sovereign. This means, amongst other things, that Parliament has a monopoly on making and amending laws. The British constitution, and the three functions of government which operate it often falls short of creating a definitive separation. Separation of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of government should function independent of each other, in a utopian world there should aim to be a balance between the Crown and Parliament. In practice however, separation between the executive and legislature is near enough non-existent, an example being that government is made up almost entirely of MPs. Contrast this with the USA where no member of Obama’s government is equally a member of congress. However, the USA does have a codified constitution, a constitution written to delegate a clear separation of power. As we are well aware the UK doesn’t have such a constitution, the rules that

A written constitution is considered the highest form of law and is respected because of this. There is no such principle in the British constitution because sovereignty lies with Parliament.

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 paper confronts assumptions about the English and UK constitutional framework leading up to the Magna Carta and other documents that both lead up to, and follow it. Our constitution has roots in English common law and written law. Common law was in place and used before written laws were created. The Magna Carta was emplaced to end common law in England. The Manga Carta was the first written laws that shifted the English political system to something

The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten

The bill of rights of (1688) can be seen as the historical origin of the supremacy of parliament and since that point, many of the prerogative powers have been abolished or superseded by the state. Prerogative powers, then can be described as the residual powers of the state that are not governed by the legislation and do not require authorisation by parliament.

Compared to the US Constitution, the rule of law in the UK is seen as

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be

Royal prerogative is a source of law, historically exercised by the ruling monarch. However, the prerogative powers are transferred to government ministers over many years, allowing them to exercise the prerogative powers without the authority of parliament. Although there two types of controls existed to limit the use of these powers; 1) Judicial Review, and 2) constitutional conventions, but there are problems existed in both types of controls. RP can be controlled through judicial authority but there are not many statute for all of the prerogative powers to be controlled.

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

The Arguments For and Against a Codified Constitution A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government, regulate the relationships between them, and define the relationship between the state and the individual. The most common way of classifying constitutions is to distinguish between codified and uncodified. The UK has an uncodified constitution.

The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty stems from the Bill of Rights 1689 which effectively established a Constitutional Monarchy. This Bill had removed sovereignty from the monarchy alone- who had absolute power in areas such as the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary, and ensured that legislation could only be executed with Parliament’s agreement. Parliamentary Sovereignty is an integral principle in Britain’s uncodified Constitution. According to Dicey ‘”Parliament” has “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament’. Overall Dicey as a Theorist argues that Parliament is sovereign and can legislate in areas that it wishes, showing Parliament to be the highest source of law in the UK. A component of this doctrine is that Parliament is able to enact on any matter, including those

The law which is purely of a permissive character and confers only privileges is not covered by Austin’s definition of law. An example can be taken of the Wills Act which lays down the method of drawing a testamentary document has not been included in Austin’s definition.