However, being a member of the European Union has led to lost sovereignty. It will be argued that parliament has lost sovereignty but can retrieve it at any time. The Law of EU is very unique and special system in the world and its strong indicator as to how parliament is losing sovereignty as any legal acts, directives, decisions or regulations which are made by European Parliament have a binding force for all Members of Union. It is obvious that if Court of Justice of the European Union made any decision on a particular case, henceforth it becomes a judicial precedent for those members who follow the common law traditions including England. The parliament sovereignty in the English system is strongly affected by UK’s membership of the European Union.
The main flaw with the constitution of the United Kingdom is that it allows the government of the day too easily to remould constitutional issues in ways which suit their own interests. Critically discuss. This essay aims to critically analyse arguments concerning whether the constitution of the United Kingdom can be altered by the government of today, in modes which suit their best interests. In relation to the statement above, a conclusion will be deduced after looking into the functions of the constitution, the theories of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Separation of Powers, alongside means by which the government has sustained power. Professor KC Wheare defines the constitution of a state as: “… the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government.” The evolving nature of the UK constitution implies that it is somewhat straightforward for the government to alter the constitution and adapt it to ever changing times.
It would also prevent the government to interfere with the constitution unfairly, as it would be protected by the existence of the higher law and the ‘supermajority’. Secondly, a codified constitution would allows for neutral interpretation, which means that the constitution would be policed by senior judges, who would ensure that the provisions of the constitution are properly upheld by other public bodies. Thirdly, a codified constitution would protect rights. Individual liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution because it would define the relationship between the state and the citizens. One way these rights could be defined is through a bill of rights that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual and also defines the legal extent the civil liberty.
Evaluate the impact of European law on English law This essay will outline and discuss the impact of the European Union has over the English law and the decisions made. Parliamentary Sovereignty is what makes parliament the high supreme authority regarding legal issues in the UK and can also create or take away any given law. Parliamentary sovereignty is ultimately the most vital part of the UK constitution; the UK constitution is referred to as being partly written down due to it not really existing in a single test. Parliament over the years have passed laws to limit the application of Parliamentary Sovereignty, these laws include: The human rights act 1998 The UK’s entry to the European Union in 1972 The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish parliament and welsh assembly The decision to establish the supreme court in 2009, which ultimately put an end to the House of Lords being the final court of appeal. Parliament can still undermine any of the laws which implement these changes, therefore these developments do not fully undermine parliamentary sovereignty.
Sovereignty is used to describe the idea of the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit, Parliamentary sovereignty is part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom. It dictates that Parliament can make or unmake any laws as it is the ultimate legal authority in the UK. Parliament is still sovereign as it can make law on any matter and it has legislative supremacy. However parliamentary sovereignty can be questioned due to the membership of the European Union and the Human Rights Act. 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.
Judicial review was established through judicial interpretation in court case Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court justices interpreted that the Constitution gives them to right to review laws for constitutionality. Another informal method is incorporation of traditions, precedent and practice. Although not enumerated in the Constitution, a traditional practice may be widely used because of widely acceptance. Political faction is one example of amending the Constitution informally.
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.
In this field Parliament makes and unmakes the law, the judge’s duty is to interpret and to apply the law, not to change it to meet the judge’s idea of what justice requires. Interpretation does, of course, imply in the interpreter a power of choice where differing constructions are possible. But our law requires the judges to choose the construction which in his judgment best meets the legislative purpose of the enactment. Judges obey Parliament. They are therefore there to interpret and apply a statute in the way that is intended by Parliament (This used to be true also in light of legislation incompatible with the European Convention of Human Right).
“ … rules of constitutional behavior which are considered to be binding by and upon those who operate the constitution but which are not enforced by the law courts … nor by the presiding officers in the House of Parliament. “ Conventions are non-legal rules of political behavior which is vital for smooth operation of the
He considered the law as commands from a sovereign that are enforced by threat of sanction. There were many criticisms to Austin’s theory, especially Hart, he argues that this is an inaccurate description of law, noting that laws may have several sources and legislators are very often subject to the laws they create. Another criticism of Austin's command theory is that a theory that portrays law exclusively in terms of authority fails to distinguish rules of terror from forms of governance adequately just that they are accepted as reasons for action by their own citizens. INTRODUCTION John Austin defined law, “Law as the command by the political sovereign enforceable by a sanction.” Like Bentham, Austin too adhered to the utilitarian philosophy of life. This appeared to him to be the ultimate test of law.