The Traditional View Of The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Supremacy

1554 WordsJan 10, 20167 Pages
The traditional view of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is that Parliament is legislatively omnicompetent. Parliamentary supremacy was also referred to as ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ by A.V Dicey. He used this to describe the idea of “the power of law-making unrestricted by any legal limit”, he basically used it to describe a legal concept. This legal concept was “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever, and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the laws of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” The Parliament which benefitted from unlimited legislative powers was made up of the Queen, House of Lord and House of Commons, hence there was negative and positive aspects to the principle of parliamentary supremacy. Positively, all Acts of Parliament would have to be obeyed by the courts. However, with regards to the negatives, it meant that “no person or body of persons who can… make rules which override or derogate from an Act of Parliament”. Therefore the UK courts cannot derogate from, or ignore in any way an Act from Parliament as there are no external constraints on what upon the capabilities of parliament. This leads to question that since, in theory, Parliament can create any Act that it wishes, is it capable of entrenching legislation. Some writers believe that the answer is very clearly ‘no’. In 1955 Wade published an article arguing that it is impossible for Parliament to entrench legislation
Open Document