The First Year Of The Magna

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be

The United Kingdom can easily change their laws than most countries, which can be beneficial to new situations. Furthermore, the British Constitution does not have a set stone and it illustrate to their residents on how as well as when political power is allocated, which allows politicians and attorneys to relied on the constitutional authorities to grasp a better understanding.

Moreover, the British constitution has shown itself over centuries to be extraordinarily dynamic and flexible, with the capacity to evolve in the light of changes in circumstances and in society. There are many who

One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s

The British constitution is flexible in nature, which has allowed for the development of this country over centuries without the need for a fully codified constitution. I

A constitution is a set of rules which may be written or unwritten, establishes the distribution of power in a political system, the limits of government jurisdiction, the rights of citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself. An uncodified constitution is unwritten, or at least not written all in one document. The constitution in the UK is found in a variety of sources which are mainly statute and common law, conventions and traditions, European law etc. There are arguments for the UK to both retain an uncodified constitution and to change this to a codified constitution like the USA. Some of the arguments for retaining the uncodified system are that; codification produces

“The United States Constitution is the oldest written national constitution still in use” (Confederation and the Constitution, pg. 71). After more than 200 years, the Constitution is still changing to support the next generations needs. This “living document” has many different reasons that allow it to “fit in” with the new generations.

A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. (McCulloch V. Maryland)

The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten

The word ‘constitution’ is commonly used in at least two senses in any ordinary discussion of political affairs . First of all it is used to describe the whole system of government of a country , the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government . These rules are partly legal , in the sense that courts of law will recognize and apply them , and partly non-legal or extra-legal , taking the form of usages , understandings, customs , or conventions which courts do not recognise as law but which are not less effective in regulation the government that the rules of law strictly so called.

Impressment, the act of pressuring men into the administration of a naval force by compel, had been a piece of English oceanic culture since before the Magna Charta and went on for over six centuries for the basic reason that it was less expensive than paying a wage that would have pulled in men to the work in any case. Impressment turned into a noteworthy issue for the United States in the Early Republic, the period taking after the American Revolution. Extraordinary Britain's support in the Napoleonic Wars drove British press packs, gatherings of men contracted and drove by a controlling officer of the Royal Navy, to seize men found in seaports and to drive them to join maritime teams. Rules intended to control the press posses were normally

In conclusion,the UK government should keep the uncodified constitution. The majority of the people on the whole,

These seem to assert controls on the constitution, but conventions cannot actually be enforced. Jennings defines conventions as ‘provide the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law’. The convention of collective responsibility is often broken, recently Hazel Blears attacked Gordon Browns government as being ‘lamentable’ as she believed Labour where misreading the mood of the British people. However as shown by the case of Attorney General V Cape Town ltd ‘Even if conventions exist they are unenforceable at law’. All that can be done is give rise to ‘legitimate criticism’, for example the minister may be asked to step down or could lose their place at the next cabinet reshuffle. Showing not all sources of the UK constitution, such as convention, lay down controls on the constitution.

Most countries have a written constitution, which is a single document that delivers straightforward principles that practise public power and how they exercise that public power. Furthermore, it offers techniques and procedures of how the constitutional rules are enforced and how they can be changed. For New Zealand, we follow the United Kingdom and there Westminster system, as our constitution in “unwritten”. New Zealand’s constitution has always gained controversy, but the fact of the matter is we do have a constitution even if it’s not documented or compiled into one document as a whole. It is a very important aspect of New Zealand’s history and it is what shapes today’s society. This essay seeks to examination what a constitution in general terms is, what New Zealand’s constitution consists of, how the monarch or head of state links directly to New Zealand’s constitution and connections with the government, what republicans believe in and what a republican society looks like from countries that live in it, explanations of a democracy, and lastly the effects of what would happen regarding the constitution, government, and society if there was a decision made to abolish the monarch in New Zealand.

Abolishing the Monarchy in New Zealand would inherently call into question the issue of constitutional reform. New Zealand would need to consider having a written constitution. In this essay the focus will be on ‘Independence and a Written Constitution’ in relation to steps that may need to occur for New Zealand to become a Republic. I will reflect on the use of the word ‘may’ briefly as there are merits in remaining with an “unwritten Constitution” mainly in relation to the fluidity that has historically led New Zealand’s gradual progression to Independence.