One characteristic of the UK’s unique constitutional framework is that it is considered a constitutional monarchy. Discuss what is meant by “constitutional monarchy” before going on to provide a detailed evaluation of the powers of the royal prerogative in the twenty-first century.
This essay will look at what is meant by “constitutional monarchy”, before going on to look at and
evaluate the powers of the royal prerogative in the twenty-first century.
Constitutional monarchy
A constitutional monarchy is a form of constitutional government, where either an elected or hereditary
monarch is the Head of State. Britain has a constitutional monarchy. The constitutional monarchy is in which the monarch acknowledges the rights of the
…show more content…
It must now be unconstitutional for the Sovereign to dismiss the Prime Minister and his or her colleagues in all but the most exceptional circumstances.”#The last dismissal was a very long time ago, for the Queen to exercise her power of dismissal it would take exceptional circumstances, for example a constitutional crisis in which action must be taken for the greater good of the nation. During a hung Parliament, which is a period where no one political party has an out-and-out majority, it would be considered an exceptional circumstance whereby the Queen could exercise her prerogative power as the monarch. “The power of dismissal is said still to survive for use if a government should act to destroy the democratic or parliamentary bases of the constitution.”#According to Turpin and Tomkins, “dismissal of a government may still be an available measure of a last resort, but it is likely to generate vehement public controversy.”#
“The prerogative power of dissolving Parliament belongs to the Sovereign, but its exercise depends in ordinary circumstances on the judgment of the Prime Minister.”#Following the constitutional convention, the prime Minister must seek permission from the Queen to dissolve Parliament. In modern times this power is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Queen is highly unlikely to reject a request, the
Answer: Absolutism hold the supreme or absolute powers and constitutionalism is the head of state and a hereditary or elected monarch. Absolutism is when the King or Queen rules with absolute and total power. Which basically makes them a dictator. A King or Queen of constitutionalism has limited powers since they rule along with a parliament or a governing body. An absolute monarch is entitled to make all the economic and other state-related decisions for the country whereas in the constitutional monarchy, the parliament is responsible for the economic and foreign affairs. A absolute monarch is not legally bound, a constitutional monarch is legally bound by the constitution of their country. The absolute monarch gains powers either from hereditary or from marriage. The constitutional monarch is either elected directly or indirectly.
Following on from the preceding discussion, then, it is possible to explore the types of constitution in existence. From the aforementioned distinction, we can observe correct – rule with a view to the common good – and deviated – rule with a view to the private advantage – constitutional arrangements. Within each of these are three types of constitution. The three correct types of constitution comprise a kingship, an aristocracy, and a polity; the three deviated types of constitution consist of a tyranny,
The Supremacy of the monarchy is the monarchical state of being superior more than all others in power which refers to the Bristish Law’s called Magna Carta, common law and precedent. The Magna Carta is a charter that King John of England was forced to seal and sign the Magna Carta, otherwise he would be considered shameful and unjust. Magna Carta is still one of the most influential documents that is a part of our law which exhibits the idea of liberation of citizens. King Henry II developed a system of travelling judges (circuit judges) who would visit villages, resolve conflicts, heard cases and created new laws which is now considered common law. According to the textbook, common law has three meanings. It refers to the law that comes from Britain, it means a law that is common is all… law that applies to all subjects in the land and it also means law that is based on the best decision of judges. Common law is the law that is the same for every individual and should be obeyed by everyone equally and ethically. Common law is also seen as a precedent because the past decisions of the judges were recorded and were used for alike cases or conflicts. In short, the Supremacy of The Monarchy developed from the Magna Carta, common law, court system and precedent that helped our Canadian law develop to make it
Britain, to begin with, has no written constitution due to the country’s own constitutional structure’s stability. It remains uncodified, yet it’s legal sources stem from Acts of parliament, European Union law, equity and common law,. Therefore the varying powers of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law will be considered against these sources.
Imagine a world were only one person had the sovereignty of a nation through his bloodline and was not chosen by the people of the nation. This form of government is known as absolute monarchism which was practiced since the beginning of the middle ages till this day (Pope Francis, Vatican City). When it comes to a monarchy, it is composed of an individual(s) (king or queen) who reigns till his death and has a divine right appointed by God to be the ruler. The divine right was a doctrine that plead in favor of absolute monarchism, which means that the power of the rulers came by God’s authority and could not be downsized by any earthly organization such as the government or even the parliament. The Queen Elizabeth I, ‘The Virgin Queen’, also
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.
Let’s see what is Monarchy? It is a king or queen who gets all the powers of authority from inheritance and power stays in the same family, usually the bloodline from father to son. In Ancient Greeks, there weren’t too many monarchies, but there was some present and even Athens went under the monarchy at the end of the classical period which ended with the death of Alexander the Great. His father Phillip II of Macedon who became king after the deaths of his two brothers conquered Athens after the Peloponnesian war and ended democracy in the great city of Athens. (Wasson, 2014)
King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland, acts as a testament to why an absolutist monarchy is doomed to failure as a country cannot function efficiently and with moral dignity without a parliament. The justification of an absolute monarchy lies in the Divine Right to Rule, the philosophy that God had entrusted kings and queens both the Right and Duty to rule over their subjects. Hence why, questioning their judgement is to question God Himself, an unreservedly blasphemous act which was designed to maintain order and discipline amongst servants to the monarchy. However, as early as 1625, the year of Charles I’s succession to power, Parliament began to show resistance towards this Divine Right, only giving the monarch the right to collect
monarchy government. A monarchy government is a government ruled by a King or Queen in a
Parliament can however override and replace the prerogative by statute e.g. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Courts are capable of judicial review of these powers as was held unanimously in the GCHQ case. Only prerogative acts, which don’t involve high policy best determined by the executives will be reviewed.
Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .
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’.
Government falls into two categories; monarchy or a republic. A monarchy is a form of government that is always headed by a
A monarchy is a form of government where a monarch is ruling and usually, they are referred to as a king or queen. Also, a monarchy is hereditary. In history, the ancient Egyptians saw their monarchs as gods. Beginning in 1500, many European monarchs claimed that their power came from gods; also known as the divine right of kings. The World War I ended many important monarchies; however, there are still 26 monarchies around the world some of which are the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, Morocco, Jordan, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Swaziland.