This essay looks to discuss Parliamentary sovereignty as a constitutional relic and will argue that it has not been rendered obsolete by the supremacy of European law. This will be done by examining the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It will further argue that although the United Kingdom’s statutory recognition of the Human Rights Act 1998, in response to the convention of HR, may be seen to limit the supremacy of Parliament, it will prove that Parliament still reigns supreme. It will highlight that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is a relevant and crucial doctrine within the United Kingdom’s constitution as it is essential for parliament to enact statutory law. This essay, taking all the above arguments into consideration, will conclude that Parliamentary sovereignty is very much alive within the UK constitution.
With the rise in the professional politician many prefer to remain loyal in order to gain power and move up in the hierarchy as opposed to become a rebel who remains in the back benchers. This can be seen after the vote on tuition fees and the liberal democrats. Despite the fact that they had campaigned for this cause endlessly only 26 (including a few Conservatives) chose to vote against the bill. Whips play an important part in removing efficiency from Parliament. By having whips who ensure that MPs behave in accordance to the decisions of the executive both Parliaments ability to scrutinise and hold the executive to account is diminished, but also their role as representatives of their individual constituency is also compromised.
Theresa May and the Conservative-led government tried to bring in legislation and executive acts, but the judiciary protected Abu Qatada and his human rights, until his human rights would have been satisfied (Jordan agreed not to torture or mistreat him). However, regarding this issue, if government are incredibly keen on getting an issue through without the judiciary being able to intervene, they are able to bring in legislation to fulfil their wishes and bypass the judiciary. Following on from that point, the judiciary can prevent the unfair treatment of citizens through judicial review. This is the process through which cases between the government and individuals are reviewed on the basis of how lawful they are. By reviewing cases of dubious outcome, they can protect the rights of the individual rather than letting the government figuratively, walk all over them.
Answer: A dictatorship and democracy are quite different, but they can also be similar. In a dictatorship the common people have no say in the on goings of government or the treatment of the governed. In a democracy the people DO have a say in what goes on, and they vote to make decisions. Both can be good in bad in their own ways. Some say a dictatorship is better because the people don’t know what is and isn’t good for them.
But in reality, especially in the “domain of foreign affairs”…the central legal issues rarely come before the Court at all. The law is effectively settled within the executive branch or by the informal agreements between the president and Congress” (Caplan 21). The other branches of government are aware of the overuse of presidential power but do not know how to address the issue to somehow resolve or better the situation. Too much executive power could lead to the abolishment or stacking of Congress, the judiciary system, the House and the Senate. By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship.
I have produced an introduction and some paragraphs for this question which should be helpful in providing you with a guide to the correct approach in essay-type questions. In particular, note the importance of linking the arguments to the wording of the questions and maintaining an objective approach, with supporting evidence. To what extent is the UK a genuine democracy? In assessing whether or not the UK is a genuine democracy, it is important, at the outset, to consider what is meant by democracy and the criteria which need to be met in order to regard a country as being genuinely democratic. Democracy may be defined as a political system in which people exercise power over the decisions which affect their lives.
Democracy respects the human rights of the individuals, better than any other form of government. Without going into confusing arguments, let's stop and think for a moment. If you are a leader of a democratic nation and you are abusing your power or using your power in the wrong way to restrict or violate somebody else's rights, what will happen? There are two possible outcomes. You can be blamed or voted out of your position, both of which ensure the removal of the leader from abusing society.
A democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives (reference.com). By living under a democratic government we ensure that our rulers are elected by the people to serve the people. What is the meaning of democracy in the United States? Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests.
How do the rule of law and accountability operate within the United Kingdom constitution? Does the reality match your picture of how a democracy should work? Explain your reasoning drawing on relevant material you have studied. Define Rule of law. The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
Citizens should be encouraged to embrace their citizenship, and not merely as a duty, but as a meaningful opportunity to participate in their own government for the sake of common good and in building the culture of life. In addition, it is an exercise of significant individual power. Now, most Americans will tell you that our politicians have all the power, but I disagree. Although it is true that our politicians do make the laws, here in the United States of America, the people have the authority. If an individual does not vote, then that individual cannot argue or comment on the outcome of what our politicians do.