Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Parliamentary sovereignty essay
Parliamentary sovereignty essay
Parliamentary sovereignty essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Parliamentary sovereignty essay
We , the Algos would like to enforce a Unitary Parliamentary Sovereignty, that is unicameral and enforces a flexible constitution. Seeing as we are a minority, we have been pressured to adopt the cultures of those who surround us. As minorities, we refuse to be overlooked and erased from society. We are proud of our culture and do not wish to live in similar conditions of the last dictator. As a united front we, the Algos, believe that a Unitary System works in our best interests. Seeing as we all share and have similar interests and ideas in all aspects of our lives, we all aim to keep our native language. We believe in equality amongst males and females when it comes to everyday life, but hold a different stance when it comes to politics.
The constitution of the UK is very unique compared to the constitutions in other European countries. In this essay, I will talk about the features of the UK constitution, the sources of the constitution and the principles, which guide it. This essay will also include key points about the uncodified nature of the constitution, and the advantages and disadvantages that come along with it. A topic of discussion has been whether or not the uncodified nature of the constitution of the UK should remain the same, or if, it should be codified. I will further discuss these ideas in this essay and highlight the pros and cons from both sides – codified and uncodified.
Both supporters and opponents of the plan are concerned with the political instability produced by rival factions. The state governments have not succeeded in solving this problem; in fact the situation is so problematic that people are disillusioned with all politicians and blame government for their problems. Consequently, a form of popular government that can deal successfully with this problem has a great deal to recommend it.
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.
Who has the greater legitimacy to represent the people? The president or the legislatures. In comparing the Chilean 1970 Presidential Election to 1979 Spanish appointment of Adolfo Suirez as Prime Minister, Linz notes “Allende received a six-year mandate for controlling the government even with much less than a majority of the popular vote, while Suirez, with a plurality of roughly the same size, found it necessary to work with other parties to sustain a minority government”. Linz supports the fusion of the executive and legislative branches because it forces a sense of cooperation. He points out that “presidential systems may be more or less dependent on the cooperation of the legislature; the balance between executive and legislative power in such systems can thus vary considerably” Linz admits that “presidential elections do offer the indisputable advantage of allowing the people to choose their chief executive openly, directly, and for a predictable span rather than leaving that decision to the backstage maneuvering of the politicians.” but qualifies it by stating that it is only and beneficial if the majority of the people of spoken. In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart’s critical appraisal of “The Perils of Presidentialism” they offer counter arguments when they suggest that a bicameral parliament can just as easily have dual legitimacy issues as a President and legislative body. It should be recognized that Linz does not address the checks and balances that allows for a more regulated government ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group. Nor does he address that elections
All societies will endure times of great trouble where people suffer, and in that suffering, discontent will give birth to voices offering a solution. While some, holding the most genuine motives, will whole heartedly rise to the challenge, others will seem parallel in these actions, but will refuse to take responsibility for any attributions made to the system, doing so in a reckless prosecution towards power. Before establishing a solution, one must find a scapegoat, a targeted group of people, to condemn. This is followed by aggressive name calling, crude insulting, and attacks on the personal rights of citizens. If name calling doesn’t work, a violent revolution will materialize, in which there will be a bloody outcome with many fatalities.
...ue dialog. Furthermore, the plea of a people cannot be delegitmized by violent actions of a handful of hardliners, instead, they must embrace the spirit of what the Basque nation stands for and bring to the table with dignity and the consciousness that true, lasting solutions often require tolerance and compromise.
Devolution is the transfer of powers from a central body to subordinate regional bodies. In Scotland, Devolution was set up to restore legitimacy to a system of government that reflected Scottish preferences. The reason behind the demand for Scottish self-government is that Scotland had the historic status of nationhood before the Union of 1707 and within the Union, has a different set of legal, educational and religious institutions that reinforce a Scottish identity.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
In 1852 the term “Popular Sovereignty” was created. This was a political idea that said the people who lived in a region should have the right to decide for themselves what type of government they wanted to have. In America, it was applied to the idea that colonists of a land had to decide under what terms they wanted to join the Union; it was applied to the status of either a free state or slave state. “The first crisis occurred when California, whose population had exploded in the gold rush, petitioned for statehood as a free state in December 1849. Admitting California, however, would upset the current, carefully wrought balance of fifteen slave states and fifteen free states”9
In writing the Constitution, the Framers were aiming to rectify the states’ inadequate attempt at establishing a democratic government. They wanted to create a stronger government while simultaneously keeping it a democracy and protecting the Peoples’ power within it. Wary of monarchy, they intended to constrain their envisioned government’s power by creating checks and balances between and within its branches. Did they do a good enough job? In Section I, we see the Framers’ intentions for the legislature’s lower chamber to be the government’s source of democracy. Section II reveals the absence of an essential check on the legislative branch, and how leaving the legislature unchecked in regard to its own elections threatens democracy in the Framers’ government. Section III shows how my amendment creates the necessary checks to address this threat, and thus protects democracy and the People in the Framers’ government.
Basic rights outlined by the Magna Carta, Parliament, and English Bill of rights have made an impact in their new governments. They view themselves as English citizens that deserve the same rights as other people living within Europe. This is starting to cause tension as the King wants to tax them without giving them representation. Therefore, they are not the ones ignoring the self government, but the English government that is ignoring
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
An issue that has remained debatable since the Jackson litigation was what ought to be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. This essay sets out to consider the reputedly irreconcilable tension between the two fundamental constitutional principles by analysing the extensive obiter dicta in Jackson and relating it to judicial review which upholds the rule of law. The contention of this essay is that despite the courts' deferential attitude towards the sovereignty of the laws of Parliament, the rule of law may potentially gain dominance and surpass parliamentary sovereignty to become the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution.
become a long lasting transitional government with much success for their leaders but in reality people
The Chief Minister’s flip-flopping aside, his party’s increasingly anarchist actions are extremely worrisome. It is indeed one such incident that has led to the Chief Minster, his cabinet and MLAs protesting on the streets, govern...