HOW WELL DOES THE PARLIAMENT FULFILL ITS FUNCTIONS? Parliament is the name given to the representative bodies in many states. Often known as the “legislature”, Parliament has important roles such as making law, calling government into account and representing the community. Recently, the extent to which the Parliament fulfilled its functions has been a controversial issue in the UK as some people claimed that the Westminster Palace had not operated well. In this essay, we will consider the performance of UK Parliament in 3 main functions: making laws, representation and controlling the Executive.
This prevented the King from creating selfish laws as he pleased. In this aspect the Magna Carta is similar to the U.S. Constitution, but our constitution consists of 3 branches, instead of 2. Another example of this is the way taxes are levied. The Magna Carta says that taxes cannot be changed unless done so by the Parliament. While we do not have a parliamentary system of government, our body of government that levies taxes is Congress.
The House of Commons has six main functions that they must carry out. There are six main functions; Legislative, Deliberative, Scrutiny, Recruitment, Legitimation and Representation. This essay will discus what these functions entail and whether they are performed effectively. Firstly, the House of Commons must fulfil its legislative function. This is the means by with parliament passes the government’s legislation.
Elective dictatorship is a big issue when discussing uncodified constitutions. As there are no laws discussing the separation of the executive, legislature and judiciary powers in UK, an example of this was the Lord of Chancellors who sat within all three of the powers. America’s written constitution states there needs to be a separation of powers, meaning Obama the President has control over the sword however no control over the purse. This stops elitism and kleptocracy, whereas the UK doesn’t have any laws against this. However on the other hand a separation of powers undermines the idea of political sovereignty, because even though they have gain legitimate power, they are not able to run the country as they wish in terms of financial and economic policies.
Although you can interpret these works of authorities to different situations, they is no information on how to deal with modern day situations (internet, electronics, etc) which leads them to being pointless in some cases. On the other hand, as you can refer to them, they set a perfect guide line in how to deal with different situations. Another key source of the constitution is Common Law. They are usually principles which have been developed and applied to the British courts when a law is unclear the judge will interpret the case to another one in the past. I reason why this source is effective is that it can be interpreted to fit into any situation in court and it sets a guide line for judges when dealing with different cases which would help things run more smoothly for the judges when in court.
In the UK we do not currently have a codified constitution nor have we ever had one however recently there have been cases put forward arguing for one suggesting it would be better for the nation. A constitution is a set of fundamental principles and rules according to which a state is governed, a codified constitution then takes this a step further by entrenching these rules making it harder and generally impossible for them to be changed. I feel that the UK does not actually need a codified constitution. One argument for the introduction of a codified constitution is that liberals argue that it would have a better safeguarding of human rights. With an un-codified constitution it means that it is very easy for aspects of it to be changed.
As your freedom of speech can be heavily hampered if you do not operate within the law; or you are voicing racist or offensive opinions, or your speech is threatening to “breach the peace” this is too say, what you are saying could be grossly offensive to some groups or individuals. The United Kingdom is definitely a democracy though (referring back to the definition) as in the UK we have free and fair (and regular) elections, and there are always 2 or more (3 main) parties to vote for. This prevents the UK from moving from a democracy into a dictatorship, as there are always other options to give your vote. The democracy also calls for competitive elections in which every adult is allowed to vote. There are further features of a Liberal Democracy which need to be held by the UK for it too fall into the category; Elected representatives and the government should be held to account by the people, something which is true within the UK as members of parliament are held accountable to the people, if they don’t do what they promise the people will not re-elect them, they are also held to account by legislature.
1. Critically analyze the main functions and powers of Congress. Introduction: Congress, which is made up of the House of Representatives and Senate is seen as the most independently powerful legislature in the world as it is fiercely protective of its constitutional position. Its main aim is to exert independence from executive influence, which in many occasions it has, especially its stance with the Health Care Bill. This independence derives from the constitution as the founding fathers suggested Congress was to be “the central element of the new political system” allowing Congress to perform checks and balances on a powerful executive.
However, it says nothing of the political role of the court. It does not say the Supreme Court has the power to declare legislation or the executive action as unconstitutional; this power over the federal and state legislation has turned the court from being a solely judicial body to a body
Moreover, there are no special procedures attached to revising the constitution as one of the main sources of our constitution, statute law, is sufficient. For example, the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act in 2001 was passed through the House of Commons and Lords but in actual fact was incompatible with the Rule of Law as it promoted arbitrary discrimination. This shows the flaw in the constitution’s flexibility as this piece of statute law was passed without proper review. A strength of the UK constitution is that it is flexible and not entrenched. Therefore the current constitution in place remains relevant and up to date as it can respond through changing circumstances.