Evaluating the Argument that Powers and Privileges of Parliament Increased Steadily at the Expense of Royal Power

'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss

Before evaluating whether or not Parliament is sovereign, it’s important to define what sovereignty means. Sovereignty can be split into two; political and legal. Legal sovereignty is the ultimate power to make laws which will be enforced within the state. Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister have ultimate legal power because they propose and enforce legislation. Citizens have no legal sovereignty because they don’t play a role in the legislative function even though pressure group activity may influence decisions. Political sovereignty is where real political power lies, and depending on the situation political sovereignty doesn’t always lie within Parliament. Critics have argued that due to recent changes, Parliament is no longer

The parliamentary system allowed kings to be more aware of the different regions and customs of the population, therefore allowing them to have more freedoms. Also, the gentry could advise the king on issues such as war and taxes so he would know what is unfair to the population, where if he was absolute, he could make whatever tax he wanted. Parliament also allowed for the separation of power into judicial and legislative branches, further strengthening the government because the two areas would not be headed solely by the monarch. Structures such as the Bill of Rights and the system of checks allowed constitutional monarchies to rule more efficiently at the end of the 17th century and on to the

Jonathan Edwards effectively uses causal, inductive, and analogical logos to persuade his congregation through reasoning and logic, in “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” in which he wants them to realize that their God is, in fact, angry with them. His use of logos is apparent early when Edwards tells the “reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment,” followed by “because” which is causal logos and appeals to the logical side and sets up his concern and his argument. (lines 10-11; italics mine) Continuing the use of “because” and causal reasoning as well as refuting his congregation's argument that God is merciful, Edwards states “it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, … he does not let loose his hand and cut

Unfortunately, Charles happened to be the ruler when parliament became more

I: It underlined Parliament’s centrality to the law and the government of the

During the reign of Elizabeth I, the Privy Council and court were the centre of the Elizabethan government. Although parliament was Elizabeth’s necessary method of legislation and raising taxes, it was far from being a regular part of the governmental system (only being called 13 times during her reign). A leading debate arose when the historian Sir John Neale argued that there was a considerable amount of conflict between MPs and the queen. Whereas revisionists, such as Graves and Sir Geoffrey Elton, challenged this view and argued that the relationship was one of co-operation. I agree with the views of Elton that over Elizabeth’s 46 year reign there was much success, however she faced a

Unlike Absolutist governments, which allowed for Kings like Louis XIV to spend on their own lavish lifestyles and palaces, constitutionalism ensured the no one leader in government was too powerful. In his The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu advocated for a government where “the executive, legislative, and judicial powers” were separated from one another (Document 6). This idea, which is one of the building blocks of constitutionalism, ensured the interest of all citizens were being represented. In the English Revolution, the once Absolutist government gained a greater separation of powers. Parliament was given sovereignty over annual taxation, in addition to the implementation of national elections every two years. Unlike absolutist governments in France and Russia, This new distribution of responsibilities helped to keep the English Monarch from making decisions that didn’t best serve the interest of his people. Ultimately, in a societally imbalanced Europe, constitutionalism ensured a separation of powers in government that prevented corruption and ensured that citizens had greater representation within their

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

“The power of the monarchs of Britain - which I'm taking to mean "of England, then Great Britain and then the United Kingdom" - has waxed and waned over the years.” as reviewed by quora.com

(England) was that the power of the legislature "... is limited to the public good of the

The Magna Carta, also known as the “Great Charter”, is one of the best known political documents in history. It has influenced nearly every great document of note following it, including the Declaration of Independence written by the founding fathers of America. The Magna Carta was a direct result of the reigns of King Richard the Lionheart and his brother King John and was written by barons who wanted to protect their rights, albeit in a way that mostly benefitted them. Therefore, this paper will attempt to examine the historical context surrounding the Magna Carta, what concerns the document demonstrated about the reigns of Richard and John as exemplified by the demands within the charter, and how the Magna Carta changed the relationship

Gaze at the timeline of history and one will stumble across selfish acts that have dominated our era – acts that have defined people’s true character and make a firm line for where their morals stand. It is rare to find a person that will put their needs before any others in the moment simply due to it being their first instinct – people whose morals are designated to helping others at all cost before their own. Morality is not defined by skin color, race, or social class; it is defined by the good intentions people have for others solely for who they are, despite what race they may be. Within To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper lee, a plethora of characters such as Mr. Underwood, Calpurnia, and Link Deas radiate true morality with the actions they portray. Whether it be by giving the respect to someone they deserve despite what race they might be, or not sitting back and watching an innocent person suffer despite what troubles may lead down the road, these characters put aside the racial quota within Maycomb. They don’t let the label of “blacks” let them see who the person really is, they define the person by their character and who they are on the inside and not what’s seen on the out.

Parliamentary Sovereignty is the concept that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the United Kingdom. Kellerman, M. G. (2011) argues that since

This meant that Parliamentary Sovereignty was replaced by a Constitutional Supremacy. A Supreme Constitution meant the highest law of the land.