The Power Of The Crown And The Authority Of The Government

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

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

The prime minister has a significant amount of power within the Canadian government. Some of the sources of the prime minister’s powers are the number of seats in the House of Commons he and his party has, his ability to give push/give priority to certain government agendas, and his ability to appoint different governmental positions. For a politician to hold the office of PM his party must hold the majority of the seats in the house; this means that by convention his party must be in solidarity with his decisions, which gives the PM’s the loyal support of his party. Another power of the PM is the ability to put forward government agendas that they believe should be prioritized. The PM also has the ability to appoint people who they believe

(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 on the divine rulers shoulders, should he fail, the nation will crumble. This kind of government could be toppled very easily, and a lack of a stable system set up in place should the monarch die would mean chaos would run rampant throughout the nation.

Evaluating the Argument that Powers and Privileges of Parliament Increased Steadily at the Expense of Royal Power

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.

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.

Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism Royal absolutism is a state of government whereby the monarch rules supreme, with virtually no legislative power placed in other organisations such as Parliament. For the people of England in the 1630s, it was a very real threat. After the dissolving of Parliament in 1629, Charles I embarked on his Personal Rule. Without analysing whose fault the breakdown in relations was, it was probably the only thing Charles could do in the circumstances. Certainly, no dialogue with Parliament was possible.

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

Dicey named ‘conventions’ the non-legal rules that regulate the way legal rules are applied . Prerogative powers are legal powers held by the crown but exercised by government without the authority from parliament. There is no doubt about their importance to the British constitution but their unwritten nature has caused disputes regarding their extent. Therefore some believe that conventions and prerogative powers should be codified. This could be in legal or non-legal form. Codification might clarify their existence and extent; neither form however will generate a more effective constitution.

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 .

“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.