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

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

The relationship and status of the monarchy in parliament’s eyes had already been in a state of decline even before Charles’ reign. His predecessor had been known as the ‘wisest fool in Christendom’ and there was a lot of resentment

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

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

‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’

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

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

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

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 crown and the authority of the government is limited by the Declaration of Man and the Citizen. One situation where the government is limited is where “Men are born free and remain equal in rights.” (1789, Art, 1, DRMC.) The government must give all men equal rights. The rights of man include “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” (1789, Art, 2, DRMC.) Both the power of the crown and the authority of the government are limited by (1789, Art, 3, DRMC.) “no individual can exercise authority which does not emanate from it expressly.” If authority does not originate directly from the crown or a member of government, they may not exercise said authority. “The law has the right to prohibit only those actions harmful to society.” (1789, Art, 5, DRMC.) Neither the power of the crown nor government can prohibit an individual from doing something that is not harmful to society or force an individual to do “what it does not order” by obstructing or changing the law. “The right to concur personally or through their representative in its formation… must be the same for everyone.” Authority must give the same rights to everyone to “concur personally or through their representative.” (1789, Art, 6, DRMC.) In Article 8, the government or power of crown may only punish a person if “strictly and plainly necessary.” (1789, Art, 8, DRMC.) If unneccessary, a person may not be penalized by government or the power of the crown. Individuals

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

A majority of judges even said obiter that Parliament could not extend its lifetime beyond five years, even if the 1911 Act was to be expressly repealed and the extension bill then passed. That leads to the question if there are basic constitutional rules that parliament simply cannot change. Lord Steyn and Lord Woolf held that the courts might have to revisit the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, if Parliament sought ‘to abolish judicial review of flagrant abuse of power by government or even the role of the ordinary courts in standing between the executive and citizens’. In such an event, the court might have to ‘qualify’ the supremacy of Parliament, ‘a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism’.

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.