Also, no power to regulate commerce, and lastly no executive branch to enforce laws; but limited by checks and balances. Lastly, the Bill of Rights had a lot of amendments and all were important. A couple of them were Freedom of Speech, Religion, and press; Right to bear arms; and Rights in Criminal Cases. In conclusion, this is my essay on a couple of reasons on how the colonists’ experiences prior to and during the Revolutionary War influence features of state Constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and the ConstitutionTo begin with, one of the experiences was that the Declatory ACTS was parliament’s ability to tax without representation, and the influence to that was that the Articles of Confederation restricted congress from taxing. Also, another experience was the Tamp Act, and the influences were taxation without representation.
Constitutional construction is one mechanism by which constitutional meaning is elaborated. It works alongside constitutional interpretation to elaborate the existing constitutional order. The process of constitutional construction is concerned with fleshing out constitutional principles, practices and rules that are not visible on the face of the constitutional text and that are not readily implicit in the terms of the constitution. We can imagine a continuum of actions that political actors can take under a Constitution, ranging from policymaking to revolution. At one end of the continuum, political actors can take constitutional forms as a given and make policy decisions under it, filling government offices and exercising government power in (constitutionally) noncontroversial ways.
The Articles of Confederation wasn’t working for the fifty-five individuals at the Constitutional Convention on May of 1787 in Philadelphia. Under the articles, there was no chief executive, court system, or a way to force the states to pay taxes. For Madison and his delegates, they were challenged by having to write a Constitution that was strong enough to hold the people and states together without letting one person or group, branch, or level of government gain to much control. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? The constitution guarded against tyranny by providing federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states vs. small states.
Parliament in Britain is generally regarded as making laws that apply to the entire population but there is no universal agreement that it should have unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind. In many constitutions, legal limits on parliament to make laws are set out in their written constitutions but as Britain does not have such a written constitution, does it mean that there are no legal limits on parliament? The traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty was first defined by Dicey in the 19th century in his book “The Law of the Constitution”. According to Dicey’s theory, parliamentary sovereignty means, “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a ride to override or set asides the legislation of parliament.” This idea of parliament being sovereign was formed at time where England was not a democratic country and it could be argued that this theory is dated and can no longer be regarded as an immutable part of UK Constitutional law. If Dicey’s theory is placed in historical context, it was produced in a very different political environment to today.
For instance, the President is not able to directly pass legislation, although he or she may recommend laws to be created; however, the congress has no obligation to follow through with the Presidential recommendation (Singh 130). Thus, the President may officially be the head of the executive branch; however, power is limited by other branches of government. This is in contrast to the Canadian Parliamentary style of government there is little to no separation of powers between the different levels of government; therefore, the executive and legislative branches are decidedly connected to each other. Therefore, the Parlamentary system in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn directly from the legislature. Therefore, the role of Prime Minister and cabinet is one which is much more encompassing than is the role of President.
In order to assess how constitutional conventions are recognised and enforced within the UK system of government, firstly, will require a look at the different definitions of what amounts to a constitutional convention, and to discuss their function or purpose, within the U.K's constitution. Furthermore, it will be necessary to identify and consider the different examples of constitutional conventions and also examine their characteristics. As way of a starting point, conventions according to AV Dicey are defined as: "conventions, understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power…are not really laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of constitutional law may, for the sake of distinction, be termed the 'conventions of the constitution', or constitutional morality…" This definition concentrates on what conventions are supposed to achieve. However, this view is not entirely accurate and it is important that conventions are distinguished from habits and practices.
The UK has an unwritten constitution as there is no single authoritative document which establishes government regulations. There is a constitutional jigsaw of various sources, such as legislation, case law, Royal Prerogative and Constitutional conventions. These are the main sources of the UK constitution and so merit discussion. This can be contrasted to the USA which has a written constitution, setting out the fundamental laws. I argue that to some extent the UK has a flexible constitution, and Giussani’s statement is partly correct.
Running head: US CONSTITUTION US Constitution Abstract The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rights and responsibilities that the US Constitution gives American citizens. Are American’s privacy rights protected under the Constitution? The Constitution contains no express right to privacy, actually the word “privacy” is not listed in the entire Constitution; however, the Constitution implies the right to privacy. As such, since the word “privacy” is not listed in the constitution but there are implications to privacy, there has been several cases pertaining to privacy and the first amendment that have been sent to the Supreme Court for hearing and interpretation of rights. Privacy Protection under the Constitution As
A core principle of the United Kingdom’s (UK) unwritten constitution is the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty - described by British constitutional scholar Albert Venn Dicey as the ‘keystone of the law of the constitution’ . Dicey defines parliamentary sovereignty as follows: ‘The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, 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 account of parliamentary sovereignty consists of a positive and a negative limb. The positive aspect is that Parliament, as the supreme law-making body of the UK, has the ability to legislate on anything it wants. The negative aspect is that once an Act of Parliament has received Royal Assent, no person or body can question its validity, not even the courts.
A closer analysis of the United States’ system of government might reveal that the Judicial Branch holds a great deal of power. One of the most significant powers of the Supreme Court is the power known as judicial review. This paper will examine the establishment of judicial review doctrine and discuss the primary functions of the concept: empowering the judicial branch, balancing the branches, and protector of constitutional liberties. The powers of the Judicial Branch are expressed in Article III of the United States Constitution. However, judicial review is not explicitly stated among