The Royal Prerogative is where the crown has unrestrained freedom to decide what is done in certain situations furthermore, “Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of the Act of Parliament is done in virtue of this prerogative,” Dicey (1885). Areas such as the power to make declarations of war and peace, the royal assent to bill, granting honours and the summoning of Parliament are some examples that fall under prerogative powers. The amount of power that Parliament have can be detrimental for instance, if too much is given to the Prime Minister then they could make questionable decisions such as Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq. On the other hand, too little control can also have disadvantages …show more content…
An Act of Parliament surpasses any other law within the UK. This is also known as the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. As of the power that parliament sovereignty holds has begun to be slightly restricted due to laws that have been passed by Parliament because of certain developments that have occurred such as the European Communities Act 1972. The judges are the ones who support Parliament Sovereignty and if they no longer pledged their allegiance to Parliament Sovereignty then it would be no …show more content…
But how effective this is can be questionable since they do not have many political parties to choose from, for instance although the decision to go to war in Iraq was brought into question, the Labour party still won the vote of the majority. If a petition for a certain topic has one hundred thousand signatures then it is eligible to be discussed in Parliament but once again it will does not guarantee any action will take place. Therefore the control the people have over the Royal Prerogative is not as effect as select committees who are able to question the use of prerogative
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
However, the UK has remained the same throughout history. Some countries have changed their constitution as a result of civil disorder, while others have changed it just for the benefit of the countries. There have been many attempts in the past to change the constitutional framework of the UK. In 2003, under Tony Blair’s regime, the UK and the US controversially sent troops in Iraq on the basis that it had “weapons of mass destruction” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832) As a result a great discussion arose. Would it be any different if the power to declare war would be in the hands of the parliament instead of just the Prime Minister alone?
The Separation and Balance of Powers in the UK Constitution “By the latter part of the 20th century the independence of the judges had come under increasing threat from interference by the executive. Recent reforms have, however, served to redress this position and ensure that a proper division of personnel and functions between these two arms of the state is restored. Discuss this statement in the context of the Separation/ Balance of Powers in the UK constitution.” French political thinker Montesquieu argued during the Enlightenment that in a democratic state the three branches of government; the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary should not overlap in personnel or function. Is the British judiciary’s integrity at stake in a constitutional monarchy which does not comply with Montesquieu’s base definition of democracy?
The Role and Powers of the UK Prime Minister Explain the factors which limit the way his/her power can be exercised
The Decisions of the House of Lords in the Case of R vs. Special Adjudicator
Judges can also change laws in court. The laws that are changed in court by a judge are usually less predictable and are harder to be controlled thank congressional changes
The question raises number of issues regarding Parliamentary sovereignty and related issues of entrenchment and express and implied repeal. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, originates historically from the troublesome relationship between the English Parliament and the Crown. The Bill of Rights 1689 created the foundation for the Parliamentary sovereignty where Crown agreed with the Parliament to limit its power. One of the key definitions of Parliamentary sovereignty was given by AV Dicey who defines it as “the Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Dicey’s theory has both positive element and negative element. Positive in that it states that Parliament can pass any laws on any subject as it sees fit and it can make and unmake laws and it is not bound by the previous Parliament nor can it bind the future Parliament. The negative element of Dicey’s theory is that no one can question the validity of Act of Parliament even the courts.
The monarchy is a medieval concept that traditionally resembles a dictatorship. The rise of parliament saw a major shift away from the monarch with laws being created by parliament. The traditional monarchy reveals a ‘top down’ approach that is corrupt with laws often sparked out of greed and self-interest. What occurs today is a ‘bottom up’ approach where lawmakers a determined by the people, accountable to the people and is therefore in practice a republic (Teague 2014.) Taking that final step towards official independence is only asserting what we have today and letting go of what used to represent an oppressive system of
People should have the rights to challenge the court’s decision when the court making a mistake but not simply put them into the concentration camp without having a judgement. Consequently, there will be having a lot of people who cannot redress the judgement from the court. In the case of R (on the application of G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and another; R (on the application of M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and another , Lord Philips MR stated that Rule of Law will become vulnerable if the Parliament intend to remove the right of people to challenge the court decision. It may ultimately lead to discontent between people and the authorities and the courts and the people may think the courts are not performing independently, the courts are just following the decision from the executive to perform their duties. In short, if people don’t even have the right to challenge the court decision but being repressed by the government, there is no sign of respecting the rule of law in either the formal and the substantive
The monarchy symbolizes unity and traditions, which is unique and treasured to the nation. The monarch universally known as head of the Commonwealth, she is voluntarily recognised as the Head of State to 54 independent countries (The British Monarchy, 2013) The Queen to modern Britain, is an icon, who cannot simply be swapped for an elected politician. The British monarchy has played huge importance in British history, which is integral to our national identity. The Queen reined for 61 years and she provides an existing connection between the past, present and future. This is exactly what a politician could not offer to the public; for instance, Tony Blair, prior to 1997 was unknown on a state level, as he had done nothing significant for the British public. The monarchy’s traditions are famous not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of sixteen other countries including Britain. Whilst the queen receives many privileges as head of state, it does come at a personal cost. Her privacy is limited as she is consistently scrutinized from t...
He solely could not make a new law because Parliamentary sovereignty limits the courts to have such a discretion. Nevertheless, it was evident in the case that the court did not want to make a declaration on the thesis that the executive has acted unlawfully, as the prerogative powers were non – justiciable at that timeframe. However in Council of Civil
The power of the courts to review the exercise of prerogative powers is very limited. As seen in Blackburn v Attorney General , Blackburn sought a statement that the government, by signing the Treaty of Rome would breach the law since the government would give up part of parliament’s sovereignty. It was held that it had the power to control whether a prerogative power existed and once it was determined that the power existed; it had no right to review the exercise of the
Moreover, there is also parliamentary sovereignty, which is the principle of the UK constitution. This entails that the Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, therefore, it has the power to create or abolish any law and the courts will not be able to overrule the Parliament’s decisions. Moreover, the future parliament cannot alter the laws passed by the pervious parliaments. Consequently, Parliament is a significant part of the UK constitution. However, recently it has been argued that the position of the parliamentary sovereignty has changed, at least partially. This can be associated with the fact that some of the laws, related to events both inside and outside the UK that the parliament has passed actually limit the power of the parliamentary sovereignty. These include, the devolution of power, the Human Rights Act in 1998, the UK’s entry to the European Union and the decision to establish a
Its only the parliament that is allowed to change or reverse a law passed by parliament. The UK is also noted to have bit and pieces of written and uncodified constitution which mean the constitution is derived from diverse sources. The UK becoming a member of European Union since 1973 has undermined the supremacy of parliamentary sovereignty, this is because the parliament is no longer the
The transfer of political power between the Monarchy to the House of Commons is evident throughout much of