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'.
It is recognised that there are six sources of the British constitution and that statute law is the most important of these. Statute Law is an Act of Parliament. It is created by the legislative process of Great Britain and then implemented by the executive and enforced by the judiciary. Therefore because statute law is created by parliament, and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is the basis of our constitution, statute law is the most important source of rules and guidelines of our constitution. According to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament is the only body that can make law for the UK.
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.
How effectively does the judiciary protect civil liberties in the UK? The UK judiciary has several methods at its disposal that provide an effective protection of civil liberties in the UK. However, in practice there are several shortcomings that make these protections weak in the face of Parliamentary pressure, which will be demonstrated in this essay. In terms of rights protections, perhaps the most important development in the protection of rights in the UK has been the installation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. This act effectively has provided a concrete document that outlines the rights of citizens.
Citizens can now access the information held on them by some 100,000 organisations. This act came into full force n 2005 yet even though public authorities are required to publish more information there are still many which can withhold information on the grounds of public safety or national security. In the respect this reform was of little impact as many companies can excuse not giving away information by claiming its for national security or public safety. One reform which has had a major impact on the constitution was devolution. Britain, at best can be described as quasi-federal as opposed to unitary state or a federal state.
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.
The threat of terrorist attacks changed American culture immensely; the devastation wakened the need for protection and a sense of security. Dramatic measures were taken in order to protect this country, so foreign relations were severely affected. Post 9/11 government saw the “link between immigration and security”, and that by changing foreign policy it would “reduce the likelihood of future attacks” (Krikorian 567).The safety measure in airports were countless from metal detectors to full body scans. “The immigration system has being penetrated by the enemy”, the officials realized which led to unfair accusation of innocents (Krikorian 568). “Overzealous officials” grill suspicious foreigners “to the point of near panic” (Khan 559).
Because the United States constitution and Ohio constitution work together in defending federalism, there are many similarities between the two texts. Both documents posses a Bill of Rights, which appeal towards the civic freedoms of the people. Though very similar in theory, the structure of the both constitutions also shows distinct differences in comparison to one another. In matters of common defense, both the federal and state governments promote the safety and protection of its citizens and the organization of armies to defend its people. As a unique document, the Ohio State Constitution carries both strong points and weak points, which, if were subject to reform, would improve the circumstances of the welfare of its state citizens.
Though to this day the American and Canadian cultures retain their differences in socioeconomic stratification, race relations, and deviant subculture, the variation in incarceration rate should be seen through a historical perspective: during Canada’s early period of growth, a much greater amount of policing was required to maintain societal protection. The immigration policy that made Canada a multicultural country also caused many problems during the initial stages of settlement (Lenton, 164). Competition and fighting between minority groups disrupted the previous homogeneity of Canadian society. The Canadian government responded by increasing the overall presence of law enforcement. Increased police presence ultimately correlated with a decrease in the total amount of crime, and by extension the incarceration rate (Bonta, 164).
The Constitution is relevant because the Constitution undergirds our country, minimal complications have risen with it. And because of the difficulty in creating a whole new document that will be as effective as our beloved Constitution. The Constitution presents the entirety our government is and will ever be. The Constitution explains our branches of government: the executive, the legislative and judicial branches. It establishes the extent to which each individual branch can oversee, as well as the limitations each branch represents.