Parliamentary Law And The House Of Commons

Arguably, the scrutiny of Public Bills has depended more on the House of Lords than it has on the House of Commons in recent years. The term “scrutiny” means the critical observation or examination regarding the Public Bills. The “effectiveness” of the scrutiny could be measured in a variety of ways, such as the period of time the bill stays in parliament for, and whether parliament can take on board evidence from committees and implement the bills into legislation. In order to determine if the House of Lords has been more effective than the House of Commons in scrutinising public bills, it is crucial to compare and contrast the effectiveness of the procedures used in both houses.

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

In Germany, it is rare that individual parliamentarians introduce a new law. The common procedure is that larger groups of parliamentarians (from one party or being interested in one topic) work together, or that a minister's staff works out a

The Bill has passed through stages before it receives a Royal Assent which is given to the Queen’s committee, the Lord Chancellor and two other peers. It then becomes an Act of Parliament. But will not come into operation until a commencement date is announced by the statutory instrument. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 weaken the rule as Bills may receive Royal Assent without consent of the House of Lords. In Pickin v British Railways Board case the Lord Denning challenged that the courts should be mindful when checking procedure to avoid abused of power.

I personally feel that the process of changing/creating laws is very redundant, and makes passing bills a slow and grueling process. I understand that the bill needs to be read over and changed several times before it fits all of the needs and wants of the many politicians present in the House of Commons, but I do not see the need for three readings of the bill, which can end up becoming shouting matches between the opposing parties because of their beliefs. Besides that, the system of creating laws is also lopsided in favour to majority governments, as if they have more than half of the seats then they can near pass or vote out whatever laws fit their agenda. On top of this, I do not see the need for the Senate to repeat the process over again,

It is important to understand the structure of the parliamentary system within which the machinery of government operates. Parliament is known as a bi-cameral legislature where by decision making autonomy resides with the lower house. The House of Commons and the House of Lords exists as a check upon the powers exerted by respective governments thou right it’s debating and ratification functions. In theory, the bi-cameral legislature in British political system exists to ensure that policy and legislation is created democratically and secondly to protect the country from autocracy or the emergence of dictatorships. Although it could be argued that both of these functions of parliament have been apparent in recent history. In this essay I

In light of the above statement by Lord Reid, it is evident that UK courts do not have the power to strike down an act of parliament as unconstitutional due to a variety of factors. Having a political constitution in the UK the efficiency of the Government overpowers the strict separation of powers and upholds the sovereignty of parliament, leading to the courts being unable to go beyond the power of Parliament and striking down acts that are unconstitutional. Majorly unlike that of the legal constitution of the United States, who allow the courts to strike down any Act they deem unconstitutional. This essay will look at the why the courts cannot deem an act of parliament unconstitutional in comparison to that of the United States.

Primary Legislation: Starts as a bill and then goes through several stages through parliament if it is passed by a majority vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate and agreed by both houses it will be sent to the Governor General for Royal Assent, if approved it will become an Act.

Usually a Minister who wishes to introduce a bill gives written notice (advance warning) of his or her intention to the Clerk of the House, who arranges for the bill to be listed on the Notice Paper (the House’s agenda of business) for the next sitting day. Then the Minister/member in charge of the bill will move for the Bill’s introduction and first reading, and present a copy of the bill and an Explanatory Memorandum. It is at the completion of this stage that the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum become public documents, and are released by the State Law Publisher and attached to the Parliament’s Internet site for public access.

A Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States, by Thomas Jefferson (1801)

For legislations to be passed, there must be a majority vote. Therefore, when parties have majority seats, they can practically pass any laws they like, especially when there is no upper house to ‘check’. Now, how can we stand here and say this is not an issue? Extreme governments are taking advantage of our justice system. An example of this was seen in the Newman government.

From the Parliamentary act, I understand that the mother country, Great Britain, had all rights and power over the colonies. They tried to control the colonies in any way they could. In doing so, they did things like the Stamp Act then the Declaratory Act. They used many different Acts in different situations but all for the same purpose. The Parliament’s authority was the same in America as in was in Britain. Everything that was taxed from goods to slaves, always found its way back to Britain. However, I don’t think Britain acknowledged or respected the rights of the colonists.

Identify - explain the types of people in the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Every Act of Parliament begins as a bill which is a draft law that may be public or private. A public Bill is launched by the Government and affects everyone in the country. However, private

The orthodoxy that the UK Parliament remains insufficiently assertive should be discarded. The UK Parliament, as the highest legislative authority in the country, shoulders the responsibility to represent the interests and concerns of the public. All the while, the Parliament has effectuated well-established functions. However, the relationship between the Parliament and the executive body has evolved over time. The changes in the roles of the legislative and executive body is more evident. In this essay, I will seek to expand on this thesis by outlining the function of the UK legislature, examining the measures taken by the Parliament, and analysing the arguments for and against my claim.