This changed the way power was distributed within the government, due to the Constitution. Great Brittain has an unwritten constitution unlike the U.S.A. Instead Britain's laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention and more recently E.U law. This means that the British constitution has no single document, which states principles and rules of a state. The Constitution is one document explaining all of the principles and rules of the government, and how power is separated in the goevernment.
The Executive Branch, which includes the president, is in charge of enforcing laws, the Legislative Branch controls making laws, and the Judicial Branch is a system of courts that interpret the laws created and enforced by the other branches. Hamilton stated as opposed to the Executive and Legislative branches of government, “...[The Judicial Branch] has no influence over the sword or the purse;” (Federalist #78) Because the Executive branch has the power to enforce law and the Legislative branch has the power to declare war and make laws, Hamilton argues that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous. Although I believe the Judicial branch has many positive aspects, I agree with Hamilton’s argument
Discuss the view that the UK Constitution has become too flexible (30 marks) The key features of the UK constitution is that it’s uncodified, there’s not a single document stating the rules, its developed from various sources e.g. common law, statutory law, EU Law and relies on tradition as much as nay written documents. The main advantage of this is that it can easily be changed allowing us to evolve E.g. Regional Devolution (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). The UK has a unitary constitution, where all power and authority resides in Parliament.
According to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament is the only body that can make law for the UK. No other body can overrule or change the laws which Parliament has made. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty however cannot be found in statute law, it is part of another source of the constitution, common law. The reason it is not part of statute law is that Parliament can pass, change, or repeal any law it likes and is not bound by laws of previous Parliaments. Therefore if parliamentary sovereignty was an Act of Parliament it would be possible for Parliament to repeal it and destroy the principle.
3. How and why have senior judges come into conflict with government ministers since 1997? [25 marks] In 2003, momentum grew for reform of the British senior judiciary, says Neil McNaughton. The Labour government which took office in 1997 had always aspired to carry out this reform. However, this reform of the judiciary had formed conflicts between the government ministers and the judiciary due to several reasons.
Justice Marshall wrote in Sturges v. Crowninshield1: (L Ed p. 550) “[A]lthough the spirit of an instrument, especially of a Constitution, is to be respected not less than its letter, yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words. ... if, in any case, the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case would be so monstrous that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.” Justice Marshall did not equate “plain” meaning with “literal” meaning but rather the meaning that it would have for a “normal speaker of English” under the circumstances in which it was used. Even on the principle of textual interpretation, American courts from case to case expressed a consistent view that such is the character of human language that no word conveys to the mind, in all situations, one single definite idea; and nothing is more common than to use words in a figurative sense. The words thus are used in the
Sovereignty is in essence ultimate and unchallengeable power, the location of sovereignty in the UK in recent years has changed from one single power and devolved into many unions, treaties and nations within the UK and EU. Parliament is the only body that can make law in the UK. No other authority can overrule or change the laws which the parliament has made. This, then gives the statute law more power and priority over the other sources of the constitutions. This then allows the parliament to change or repeal any law it wants and is also not bounded by the laws made by the previous parliaments.
But also that it is of equal importance to justify one’s actions when thought of doing nothing wrong. Socrates gives the perfect example of this in the Crito, when stating “in war and in law courts, and everywhere else, do whatever your city or father land commands or else persuade it as to what is really just”(51b-c). Socrates addresses both the importance of law and self morality here. It is very important to follow the laws set in place, in fear that people need order. But all laws are made by man, and are therefore not perfect.
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.
The legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law are derived directly from the right of every citizen to vote. Denying prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important tool of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility. In fact, the denial of voting rights on the basis of attributing moral indignity is inconsistent with respect for the dignity of each person. Furthermore, denying the right to vote does not meet the requirements of a legitimate punishment, and deprivation of this right does not dissuade criminals from committing a crime or rehabilitates them