How important was the Privy Council
It could be argued that the monarch was an important member of government however some may disagree and put forward the idea that the Privy Council was more important. This is for several reasons the first reason (for the monarch) was the fact that she could decide who could become a member of the Privy Council this is because it meant that she had total power over those who that would help run the country. However this did not mean that the monarch was the most important figure as it could be argued that the monarch did in fact have a ‘Back Seat’ with regards to running the country as historians could argue that it was the privy council, as opposed to the queen, that did the main portion of running the …show more content…
This also differed it from the Privy Council as despite the Privy Council creating the laws in the first place they had very little in the act of actually enforcing them; this is where they relied on local governments in order to ensure these laws where being enacted. This does give some leeway to the idea that the P.C was not in fact as important as they needed the local governments in order to enforce anything.
Despite the local council
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss
The primary authority of the colonies was meant to be the British Privy Council, which was responsible for governing both Britain itself as well as the entirety of its vast overseas empire. The greater part of the members of the Privy council, who governed from England, had little to no knowledge of the colonies themselves, and nearly every member of the council had never so much as set foot in America. In order to compensate for the unacquaintedness of the British government with the colonies, Royal Governors were also appointed as authority figures to govern from within America itself. However, many of these Royal Governors were chosen for reasons other than their capability as leaders, and were therefore ineffectual authority figures. As a result of the insufficient political system and British salutary neglect of the colonies, the Royal Governors who had been appointed by the British had much less power than the British had likely intended, which
In your educated opinion, is the Judiciary really the weakest branch of government? Explain your answer. Has the Court gained or lost power over time? How would Hamilton respond to your argument?
One of the three main theories that work as basis of the organisation of the United Kingdom is the Doctrine of separation of powers, such as Parliament sovereignty and the rule of law. This essay is going to critically discuss whether the United Kingdom needs and have the clear separation of powers.
The powers that had to do with enforcing laws went to the executive branch, and the responsibilities having to do with the courts and guilt or innocence of citizens went to the judicial branch. The legislative branch takes care of creating laws. “(L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct” (Document B). The branches had to be unique and do only what they were meant to do to avoid one of the branches having too much power. These branches made sure to check on each other periodically, and they made sure each was doing their job correctly, along with making sure that they were being
Government is the governing body of a nation, and during Tudor England, the government was the monarch, due to royal prerogative. Also, for a government to be classed as effective, it must have been successful in achieving a desired outcome. I believe that Edward was a more effective monarch than Mary between 1550 and 1553 due to the work of Northumberland, because during this time the government had effective financial, foreign and religious policies, and an effective internal security.
The doctrine of separation of power is not followed in England, it follows a parliamentary form of government where the parliament is supreme. Instead of crown that is the nominal head, the cabinet calls the shots on most of the matters. (Peterson)
The English had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for so long that they were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person. The least influential, Charles I, was born in 1600 and died 1649 when he inherited the throne parliament was very upset with the monarchy and sought to lessen the power of the monarchy. Charles I tried to rule without consenting Parliament, but Parliament had so much control at the time that he failed to decrease its power. However, Charles believed in the divine rights of kings. Charles went on to oppress his people by levying taxes without the consent of the parliament. Many of his subjects saw him as a tyrannically oppressive leader. He created
The creators of the Constitution wanted to create a government that was powerful enough to take care of business, but not so powerful that is could threaten tyranny. One key idea in designing such a powerful, but limited, government was the doctrine of separation of powers. In old-fashioned monarchies, the key powers of government; the power to make the law, the power to enforce the law, and the power to judge the law, were all held by one person: the king. The King, claimed to rule by the direct authority of God, could do pretty much whatever he wanted. For Example, King Henry VIII. In Britain, the center of power eventually moved from the royal family to the Parliament. Still, there was no division of powers; Parliament held not only the
However, prime ministers are as powerful as they appear due to the multiple sources of power they control within the UK. Mainly, the prime minister has a vast amount of power as
There is a larger insight on the whole picture. The PM alone or the along with several ministers set the priorities and direction of the government while allowing the central agencies overlook the situation. Central agencies like Prime Minister’s Office, Privy Council Office, Department of Finance and Treasury Board Secretariat became more powerful in the political system.
tain power. The minor details do not matter. The importance lies in the fact that in a monarchy
Dicey named ‘conventions’ the non-legal rules that regulate the way legal rules are applied . Prerogative powers are legal powers held by the crown but exercised by government without the authority from parliament. There is no doubt about their importance to the British constitution but their unwritten nature has caused disputes regarding their extent. Therefore some believe that conventions and prerogative powers should be codified. This could be in legal or non-legal form. Codification might clarify their existence and extent; neither form however will generate a more effective constitution.
The prime minister can determine the ministers in each ministry (Johnson, 2004). The head of government has certain degree of authority and freedom to delegate to its ministers, and it can lead the government to more stable political situation because fusion of power between the ministries and prime minister is achieved. Prime ministers can also nominate members of the cabinet but their functions are not just limited to advisory and consultative. The members must decide collectively broad matters of policy, involving foreign affairs, finance, and other issues of concern to the entire government (Hitchner, 1970). The collective body of cabinets reduces the role of prime minister and his executive power.
Administrative Law (dealing with regulations) ‘is essentially judge made law’ and its outcomes are neither predictable nor its case law concise. Therefore while public law offers substantial protections against ‘arbitrary power’ of government it is not easily accessible to all. The courts have no power to strike down legislation (parliamentary law is supreme ) yet their power to strike down regulations is still only limited to acts ultra vires. The judiciary is an effective check on executive power (See Fitzgerald v Muldoon 1976) but its checks on the Legislature are lacking; ‘notorious’ parliamentary privilege show that the courts wish ‘not to adjudicate matters determined within the walls of the