The monarch also decided what Parliament discussed. When looking at Parliaments authority in the years 1485 – 1603 there are several important factors which can help to determine whether or not Parliament’s role and influence increased. The number of times the Parliament was called during each reign and used to pass legislation is important and can be used to explain how much influence Parliament had because the monarch was under no obligation to summon the body. However when looking at these factors they differ from reign to reign so it can be argued that the role and influence of Parliament did not increase smoothly and steadily as it depended on the monarch. The historian Chrimes describes Henry VII’s use of Parliament as ‘Little or nothing of much significance occurred in the history of Parliament in the reign of Henry VII’ However at the beginning of Henry VII’s reign the first Parliamentary session was of great importance to him as it acknowledged his claim to the throne.
The Uk judiciary has different methods that provide the protection of civil liberties within britain. However, there are also different drawbacks that make these protections difficult in the face of parliamentay pressure. The European convention on Human Rights Act 1998 has effectivley provided a stable document that reassures and states the rights of all citizens over Britain. Since this act has been passed, judges have been able to rule and make more effective decisions. This is because this act has persuaded judges to rule more confidentally rather than having to follow instructions of the common law e.g precedents.
While there are inherent difficulties in this type of Constitutional tradition, there are also significant benefits. These benefits include relative flexibility or ease in enacting amendments or evolving the law, although there are considerable constraints to safeguard against undue legal change or advancement. The flexibility of the UK constitution is obvious from the substantial number of constitutional reforms since 1997, including the annulment of the greater part of genetic companions in the House of Lords, the presentation of classified privileges of people for the first run through in Human Rights Act 1998, and devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Apparently, however, these recent constitutional reforms may have made the constitution less adaptable in a few regards. This is now a debatable topic in the UK.
Which usually is a long and complicated process. This amendment process is usually the first way we think to change the Constitution but it is actually
The current UK constitution has so many strengths that reform is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement? In the UK we have an uncodified constitution, which means we have many different sources of the constitution rather than have a single authoritative document, which would be a codified constitution. The most significant source of the constitution is legislation which consists of both Acts of Parliament and lesser legislation like Orders in Council, and rules and regulation made by ministers under statutory authority. Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements.
Firstly, a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens of the state. Most British citizens do not understand the concept of the constitution, nor what the UK constitution entails. It is therefore an argument that having a codified constitution would raise public awareness and support for the government would grow. It would also enable the public and people in government to view the constitution whenever necessary for matters such as court cases, etc. This would encourage public involvement in politics and act as an improvement to our democratic society.
INTRODUCTION – A constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or organization is governed. The purpose of a constitution is to explain how sovereign power is distributed amongst the government and people as well as to delegated bodies. There are numerous arguments for a codified constitution being introduced in the UK such as that it would offer a better protection of rights for the people and prevent an over mighty government. Calls for constitutional reform were particularly prominent in Blair's first term of government, as this was promised in the Labour Party manifesto of 1997. Arguments against adopting a codified constitution such as that it could lead to judicial tyranny are outweighed by arguments for it.
The British Constitution Briefly explain the term flexible as used in the extract Flexible means that the constitution can be amended easily and quickly as unlike a rigid constitution such as the one in the US, there is no lengthy procedure for change that has to be followed. A flexible constitution it can be altered via the law-making process, by a simple majority in the legislature as no laws are regarded as fundamental. “There is no convincing case for a written/codified constitution in Britain” Discuss To a certain extent there is no convincing case for a codified constitution in Britain. The main reason against a codified constitution in Britain is because a codified constitution would totally undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, the idea that Parliament can legislate as it chooses and that there can be no superior authority to Parliament. Moreover, no such document could be entrenched whilst Parliament retains the power to alter it at will.
England and Wales however were different. The key development of prisons is how they have progressed into becoming more humane and how their objective has changed. Their initial objective started off not really about punishment but now, prison is the main form of punishment. The gradual development of the UK constitution and the constitutional law becomes noticeable. It relates to the power and individual liberty i.e., the monarchs and the relationship of the monarchs and the commoners.
THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 3 The King Can Do No Wrong: Sovereign Immunity The definition of “Sovereign Immunity” is: legal protection that prevents a sovereign state or person from being sued without consent (West’s encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). Sovereign immunity is a judicial doctrine that prevents the government or its political subdivisions, departments, and agencies from being sued without permission. The doctrine stems from the ancient English principle that the monarch can do no wrong (2008). Under the feudal system no lord could be called to answer before a vassal, and given that the king was the highest lord in the realm, it was not possible to order him to answer to any tribunal. Of course, we have no king and the government is not the sovereign.