To give conventions justiciable entitlement would be taking away from the highly advantageous flexibility that the UK Constitution has attained from remaining uncodified. Further, the large volume of conventions may provide a difficulty in enforcing them within the courts. In contrast, it could be argued that codifying select conventions may bring certainty to many unclear areas, such as defining the Ministerial Code partly did, thus providing an easier structure for conventions to be enforced legally. However, conventions are merely seen as a moral and political obligations, and should not upon breach have legally enforceable consequences. The argument against whether the court should enforce conventions will be supported and discussed in this essay. Constitutional conventions were once defined by Freeman as ‘a whole code of political maxims, universally acknowledged in theory and universally carried out in practice’. Essentially making them rules of practice that have no legal capability. This alone gives doubt to whether we should …show more content…
allow courts to provide legal sanctions, as no matter how misdemeanour or trivial they will then be actionable in court, bringing several detriments, such as opening many politicians up for legal attacks. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union gave rise to the issues of conventions justiciability in relation to the Sewel Convention. The Sewel Convention stated that Parliament in Westminster wouldn’t legislate in devolved matters without their explicit permission to do so, until in 2016 within the Scotland Act 1998, it was given statutory recognition (within section 28, subsection 8). The majority within Miller held that section 28(8) was not a matter for the courts, ‘the UK Parliament is not seeking to convert the Sewel Convention into a rule which can be interpreted, let alone enforced, by the courts; rather, it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement’. Whilst it is shown in Miller that conventions are key (as for example, to keeping “harmonious relationships”), they are still merely political matters rather than legal ones and to try and enforce them wouldn’t be viable. This is supported by the quotation above whereby the courts by majority believed that although conventions (in this instance, the Sewel Convention) are of high importance, it isn’t amenable for them to be ruled upon and legally enforced, but instead as Jennings argued they are ‘observed because of the political difficulties which arise if they are not’. Whilst the argument of clarity and certainty for enforcing these conventions is present, it simply wouldn’t be reasonable or justified to restrict the flexibility and adaptability of the UK’s Constitution presently. It is unnecessary to give justiciable force to conventions, especially those that do not carry moral impact upon the general population, as enforcing them will unlikely see any reparation for breaking these conventions, as supported by Munro ‘the validity of conventions cannot be the subject of proceedings in a court of law.
Reparation for breach of such rules will not be affected by any legal sanction’. So the benefit of giving justiciability to conventions would be limited, as currently the political consequences of breaching can be extreme and seen as just in many circumstances. However, it may due to the argument of certainty, be benefiting to allow enforceability for select conventions, but only for ones that ‘affect individuals closely enough’, as those that don’t affect the general public essentially aren’t worth giving enforceability to. This giving a similar approach to the Australian Constitution which could be
adopted. Enforcing constitutional conventions may bring its benefits like clarity, but ultimately it would be a burden on UK’s Constitution and the courts, as it would be implausible and bring extreme difficulty to enforce generally ambiguous conventions. Conventions are at most just moral obligations upheld through political consequences, as for this, the courts do not need to be given power to enforce these. The current political consequences are sufficient in upholding obedience. The courts should not be able to enforce constitutional conventions.
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
The absence of a codified constitution raises numerous questions. The main one being,
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
The strict constitutionalist within me would not be in agreement with abandoning our constitution under any circumstances. If we were to abandon this document, we return to the same situation that we were in during 1776. There would be nothing that would bind the states together. Not having a constitution almost caused us to lose the revolutionary war. During the decade that we were without the constitution, many events occurred such as Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts, British contempt for treaties, Indian depredations, and Spanish movements on the western and southern borders. All of these combined to demonstrate how vulnerable the United States really were. Our first President, George Washington was quoted as saying " I confess to you candidly, I can foresee no evil greater than disunion".
The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
The constitution is one of the most valued documents in history. The typical American believes that the Constitution was a successful conclusion to the American Revolution. However, this is false. The Framers of the Constitution were dreamers who congregated together, originally to amend the Articles of Confederation, in Philadelphia in the early Fall of 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. The creation of the constitution was a result of the American Revolution in which delegates fashioned a manual that established a national government, essential laws and granted natural born rights to certain citizens. They wanted to establish strong fundamentals that would guide the newly free nation into a prosperous future. The document is believed
The constitutional convention began in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. The thirteen colonies involved at the time we ruled under the Articles of Confederation. The articles however became weak had flaws that the founding fathers noticed quickly with the states appearing to have individual power. On September 14, 1786 a meeting was established that gave out a call for the upcoming grand convention. Attendance was a huge issue in congress. The delegates from those states believed that is they didn’t show up then nothing can happen, but everything happens anyways. After the Annapolis meeting, selected delegates from the colonies met in Pennsylvania. They had to create and make new laws for the constitution; such as, establishing a unified currency.
The Constitution of the United States is an intricate document, that has influenced and shaped many newly formed Democratic nations. Many people believe that the ideas in the American Constitution are all novel and original, but that is untrue. The roots of American Constitutionalism are found in the historical paradigms of Western tradition. The fact is, constitutional doctrines were long developed and put into use long before the birth of America. The Greeks, the Romans, the English, and even the Colonialist in the New World all formed constitutional doctrines that would later influence the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution.
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...