The UK has a unitary constitution, where all power and authority resides in Parliament. They can make or unmake any law but cannot bind future parliaments. Although the increased use of referendums and membership of the EU may lead people to argue that Parliamentary sovereignty is being diminished. The rule of law is also a key part of the UK constitution, it’s based on the principle that no one is above the law and no one can be punished without a trial. It underlies the UK constitutions and limits the government.
Parliament can make laws on any matter due to Dicey in ‘Law of the Constitution (1885).’ He said that ‘in theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign'. He states a number of reasons as to how this is possible. Firstly Dicey points out that Parliament can pass laws on any subject without legal restriction therefore it is sovereign. This principle is a result of the election of the Members of Parliament (MPs), by the electorate which gives them authority to represent and pass legislation on their behalf.
''The UK constitution is not fit for purpose'' The bulk of liberal democracies in the world are ones of which have a constitution known as codified. The UK does not have a codified constitution or an entrenched constitution. This puts the UK in a small group of liberal democracies to not have a codified system along side with Israel, Saudi Arabia and New Zealand. Instead the UK has a constitution that contains a variety of written and unwritten sources which lays out the laws, rules and conventions of how the UK is to be governed whilst protecting the rights of the citizens. It is a common question amongst political scientists as to whether the UK constitution is fit for purpose.
With all other powers off limits to the federal government, they didn’t get too powerful. It was Theodore Roosevelt who became president in 1901 who had an immense impact in changing this outlook. He took a stand saying that the power not forbidden, as well as not granted to the federal government should be in their hands. With individuals such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B Johnson, Roosevelt spread his claim. From here the clash of the power struggle deepened.
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
This is also supports the idea that it was not revolutionary because William did not immediately assume Kingship, and instead called an assembly and a Parliament to sort out lawfully who should be King or not. In the case of a revolution, the actions of those taking over are usually much more decisive and radical. Another important factor that does not support the Glorious Revolution view is the fact little changed after it took place. A monarch still reigned and the Declaration of Rights that were read before William and Mary accepted the throne in February 1689, still kept the monarch’s prerogative rights and there was no repeal of the 1661 Militia Act that Parliament found particularly vexing. A revolution usually means a complete change that replaces the old order with a new order.
The doctrine of parliament sovereignty has been regarded as the most fundamental element of the British constitution. It can be summarised in three points: that parliament has the power to make any law they wish; that no parliament can create a law that a future parliament cannot change; that only parliament can change or reverse a law passed by parliament. Parliamentary Sovereignty thus gives unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament. A.V. Dicey describes it as ‘the dominant characteristic of our political institutions',and ‘the very keystone of the law of constitution'.
Therefore if parliamentary sovereignty was an Act of Parliament it would be possible for Parliament to repeal it and destroy the principle. However just because the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is embodied in common law does not make this a more important source of the British constitution than statute law. This is because common
Absolutism within France was a political system associated with kings such as Louis XIII and, more particularly, Louis XIV. Absolutism or absolute monarchical rule was developing across Europe during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Important politicians such as Cardinal Richilieu were staunch supporters of absolutism. Absolute rule meant that the power of the monarch was, in theory, unlimited except by divine law or by what was called ‘natural law’. In an absolute society, the only person who could change the powers of the monarch was the monarch him/herself.
ANDREW FRANCIS Why did power cause the civil war? Charles believed in the Divine Right of Kings - he was king because God wanted him to be, and therefore everyone should obey him as they would God,without question. Further, because God wanted Charles as king, then no earthly power could challenge this power,or remove the king from his position. Charles therefore believed that,as king, he had supreme political power. Parliament believed that,as the elected representatives of the People (albeit on a very narrow franchise),that they had the right to wield supreme political power.