Uk Government Consent Essay

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

“In theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign” were the words of Dicey in his book Law of the Constitution. A.V. Dicey was a British jurist and constitutional theorist in the 20th century who was adamant and argued extensively about the absolute nature of sovereignty of the Parliament which he derived from Coke and Blackstone. He had said “"Parliament" has

Today, we have freedom in many forms, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. The Magna Carta and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government laid the foundation for the freedom we enjoy today. The Magna Carta accomplished the liberty Englishmen currently enjoy by raising the status quo of peasants to commoner. This means those born to royalty will begin to treat peasants (underpeers) as people, for instance the Magna Carta states “(9) Neither we [feudal barons] nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt.” Similarly to the U.S., which has three branches of government to limit power, executive, legislative and judicial; the

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that the authority of a legitimate political regime is based on the consent of free, equal, rational and reasonable persons. Locke differentiates between two forms of consent - express and tacit. Express consent is when an individual openly articulates a willingness to join the government. This makes the individual a perpetual citizen / the individual incorporates their person into the commonwealth. Those who have given express consent are unalterably subject to society and are never again at liberty as in the state of nature.

I believe the legislative branch has more power according to the constitution. One reason why i believe this is the legislative branch has more power The legislative branch makes the laws for the country. The power includes passing laws, spending bills, and approving treaties. If the President vetoes the law, then the House and Senate can vote again on it. If 2/3rds of both approve, it can become a law anyway. Judges confirmed by the Senate.

A secondary way in which parliamentary sovereignty in the UK can be seen to be moving is though the introduction of devolution which is challenging the UK parliament’s sovereignty. The UK is a unitary state, so only one body can in theory

‘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.’

The history of parliament has demonstrated that a traditional role was to provide consent for the Monarch’s legislation. This still remains one of the main functions, also though any government enjoys a mandate from the electorate, it is still important that's it's authority to legislate is underpinned by parliament. It carries out legitimising functions as being the body which approves and sanctions major decisions in the life of the nation. For example in 2013 it did not confer legitimacy to the Government to intervene in Syria. But it can be said to have failed in the past by not fulfilling the wishes of the wider public by legitimising the war in Iraq. It is said to lack legitimacy when the government commands a large majority in the Commons. The House of Lords is also said to lack democratic legitimacy

In this essay I will attempt to show that consent does not justify UK state power.

Which was also reflected when Jefferson says, ‘’Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it’’ (104). This means that people have the right or the responsibility a government that is tyrannical. The English Bill of Rights lays down the limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out rights of the parliament including freedom of election, freedom of speech, the requirement to regular elections to Parliament, the right to petition in the monarch without fear of retribution which reflects John Locke’s ‘’Second Treatise of Civil Government’’. John Locke argued that government legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed and on a responsibility to protect natural rights. John argues, “The great and chief end, therefore, of mens uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the preservation of their Property’’ ( 93).

INFORMED CONSENT : Valid consent is impossible. To date, foetal tissue transplants have been handled as any other organ transplants under the UAGA, thus requiring consent of next of kin. The mother cannot give morally legitimate consent, since she initiated the termination of the pregnancy. Elimination of consent, however, would further turn the unborn child into an object; it would be inconsistent with the fact that, biologically, the developing foetus does not interpret the woman’s tissue. The UAGA and the NIH Panel both fail to discern the conflict between normal organ transplants and the function of foetal tissue. In the instance of foetal tissue, the mother is presumed to be the one who gives consent to the use of the tissue for the transplant (or for some other kind of experimentation). Granting to the normal understanding of proxy consent, her role assumes that she is working in the best interest of the unborn child. However, she is also the one who has initiated the final termination of pregnancy. Just quoting the part of the act dealing with informed consent stated in the NewZealand legislation

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

A second argument against the idea of consent is the following. Even if these actions can be held to constitute consent, does that mean the individual has to obey whatever laws the government makes from that day onwards? It can be argued that the act of voting e.g., or not leaving is maybe insufficient to justify creating the broad obligation to obey any law the government makes. We would possibly be exaggerating the weight of this single promise.

Lord Hope has argued that, ‘Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute …' Hence it can be said that, considering the ‘rule of law' as the ultimate factor, it is this, and not Parliamentary sovereignty, that is accountable for the respective powers of the Parliament and the courts. Baroness Hale agreed that, ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law.' Also, Lord Steyn candidly stated, ‘supremacy of Parliament is still the