The Power Of The Crown And The Authority Of The Government

Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, identify and explain two ways in which the British constitution regulates ‘the conduct of government’. (10 marks)

In contrast to the Canadian parliamentary system, which has remained fairly static and unchanged since Victorian times, the Canadian legal system has undergone a tremendous evolution over the last century and a half. When looking at Canadian history in depth one discovers the repeated movement to take power from the

(England) was that the power of the legislature "... is limited to the public good of the

Limited government and rule of law are two exhibited political values seen in the Magna Carta. In this historical document, a few English lords wanted to limit the power that the King had, and therefore made him sign the Magna Carta, so he could not have infinite power while ruling. They restricted his power to rule by having him sign the document. Limited government is when the people who are ruling do not have absolute power over the whole political system, hence why it’s called limited government! Rule of law is another political value in this document, as the Magna Carta came to mean that no one- not even the King- was above the law. Since not even the King could be free from laws, and rule of law essentially means that everyone must

Hobbes, you are adamant in the claim that an absolute monarchy is the best type of government. However, it is clear that too much power in the hands of one individual will lead to corruption. You believe that people are prone to corruption and wrong deeds. With power solely rested

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

The initial 12 actions include King George III's foundation of an oppressive power set up of agent government. The establishment of delegate government is the force of the general population to make laws for people in general great. Ruler George III meddled with that procedure by dismissing enactment proposed by the states, dissolving provincial groups of representation, supplanting pioneer governments with his selected priests, and meddling with the naturalization of natives in new districts. Lord George III developed his overbearing control by meddling with the goal legal procedures and the social equality of the settlers. Lord George III kept the foundation of legal forces in the states and made judges reliant on him for their employments

This system stems from John Locke’s theory on civil society and the extent of legislative power, stating that the civil government’s job is to protect the people’s natural rights, and he believes that the absolute monarchy he lives under does not provide that protection. Locke explains, “…(man) could never be safe nor at rest, nor think themselves in civil society, till the legislature was placed in collective bodies of men, call them senate, parliament, or what you please.” He believes that absolute monarchy places no common authority over all people; thus, by placing power in one person, the entire society deteriorates. Since the monarch can encroach on people's property and wellbeing without fear of punishment, the people lack the protection, comfort, and motivation to contribute to the good of the society. Thus, Locke clarifies that “No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it.” This causes the person in power to fear punishment from encroaching on people’s property or wellbeing and protects from the political domination they would be imposing if the law did not apply to them. If the person in power continued to impinge on people’s natural rights, Locke then believed that the people had the right to a revolution against their tyrannous monarch. Locke justifies this, saying “This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, is highly guilty of the greatest crime, I think, a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of government bring on a country.” Locke’s basis of natural rights

Occasionally celebrated with ceremonial tributes to an earlier period of history, today’s constitutional monarchies sometimes mark such affairs with the pomp and circumstance associated with an altogether different era.

Heinbecker, Paul. “The monarchy hurts Canada's standing in the world. It’s time to let go.” The Globe and Mail, July 01, 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-monarchy-hurts-canadas-standing-in-the-world-its-time-to-let-go/article19395567/. Accessed February 16, 2017.

The View of Absolute Monarchies The extent to which rulers and their subjects viewed the role of an absolute monarch was different. The time of this political issue on absolute monarchies was around the 1600s. There were people for the absolute monarchies, people with their own monarchies and people against

I do not think that the first part of the statement is completely right. Indeed, Great Britain decided to gradually extend home rule to Canada in order to avoid that Canada declared independence like the United States did in 1776. In other words, if the thirteen American colonies did not rise in rebellion and declared independence, Great Britain would have never thought of promulgating the British North American Act. Thus, in my opinion it is not possible to compare the way through which these two nations obtained self-rule and to determine which path was more democratic. Additionally, with the British North American Act, the Canadian provinces did not achieve full independence as Great Britain still controlled the Canadian foreign politics.

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 .

The Magna Carta guarantees basic rights for the people. Before the Magna Before the Magna Carta, the monarch has all the power, and could do whatever the monarch wishes, today that would be considered being above the law. Diminishing the power of government workers, section twenty-four states "No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal are hold to lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices (Langton 24)". Stating no government official is above the law with no exceptions. This is to provide a uniform system of justice. Ruling under an absolute monarchy, the monarch could have someone arrested and imprisoned for no apparent reason. Imprisonment with no reason is abolished by section thirty-nine in the Magna Carta, it states "no free man shall have seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or his possessions, outlawed or exiled […] except by lawful of his equals or by the law (Langton 39)". This states the monarch is no longer allowed to punish people unless found guilty by the law or by a jury. Section thirty-nine guarantees the individual convicted shall have a jury of one's peers, this section is one of the most crucial out of the document. The Magna Carta stated that no royal or government official is above the law, including the imprisonment of an individual unless for a valid reason and found

“Government under the law and the protection of rights and freedom are twin pillars of the rule of law. Without the separation of powers, neither of these principles would be realized.