To what extent is it reasonable to describe modern British prime ministers as presidents in all but name? Few, if any, now doubt that the office of prime minister dominates the British political system. As long as the holder of that office is not faced by too many limiting factors, such as a small parliamentary majority or a divided party, the British system has moved away from the traditional ‘cabinet government’ model to a ‘prime ministerial’ model. We argue that the system has now become ‘presidential’. * PMs perform most of the functions of a head of state: The prime minister has come to be, effectively though not legally, the head of State, the leader of the nation, irrespective of party allegiance.
–Clear definition of constitution, list some of the strengths and weaknesses in your introduction A strength of Britain having an uncodified constitution is that its nature is flexible. Meaning that the government is not limited with their ability to change governing arrangements by having to go through a lengthy and complex and procedure, as the USA have to go through to just change something within their constitution, as such their constitution has only been changed 27 tines altogether since it was created in 1787. As a result the labour party were able to bring the European Convention on Human Right into British law in 1998 with the Human Rights Act. Cameron will also be able to repeal the Human Rights Act is wants to and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, due to Dicey’s rule of law Don’t you mean his view of parliamentary supremacy?) which is one of the sources of the constitution with one of the three rules being that no Parliament is able to bind a future Parliament.
Within the due process one may not be treated cruel, unfair or be given unreasonable treatment. Every accused person is entitled to fair procedures, and the due process applies to the criminal justice system as the trials, parole hearings, and administrative hearings. Due process main goal is to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted but may be looked upon as focusing on the rights of the accused and ignoring the rights of the victims. Crime control model is taken back a little and is the complete opposite of Due Process Model, which the crime control model focuses on the initial arrest, prosecution, and the conviction of a criminal. Due process priorities stand with protecting an
On the other hand, the House of Lords is not elected but is made up of a wide variety of people with different background and specialised expertise therefore allowing decisions that are made to be less biased and more thorough. Acts of Parliament, otherwise known as primary legislation, will progress through the House of Lords and the House of Commons regardless of which house a Bill was first raised and the five stages that it has to go through in each house include intense scrutiny. This is an advantage as the public knows that there is a great amount of detail and consideration going in to these stages to make a brand new law. The scrutiny in making these laws is intense and every stage is thoroughly gone through. A key advantage of the legislative process is that it is strongly controlled by the Government, and the bigger the Government’s majority the greater that control.
Essay Title: “A core function of any Supreme Court is to challenge, or even strike down, legislation that the judiciary regards as incorrect. By denying the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom this function, a Supreme Court has been created in name but not in function. It would be better if no change had been made at all.” Discuss. Introduction of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court formally the House of Lords originated from the Curia Regis who was the queen’s advisors on law, and was introduced by part3 of the constitutional reform act (2005). The judicial functions of the House of Lords were assumed by the 12 lords of appeal in ordinary otherwise known as “law lords”.
The negative aspect is that once an Act of Parliament has received Royal Assent, no person or body can question its validity, not even the courts. In addition but nonetheless important, a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Supremacy hence lies in the current Parliament of the day, as it technically has the power to amend or repeal the legislation of any previous Parliament. Before we go any further, it is important to realise two facts. Firstly, legal sovereignty should be distinguished from political sovereignty.
In 1679 the Habeas Corpus Act initiated the transformation of the English government. This act disallowed unlawful detention of a citizen by a monarch. The Kings and Queens of England could no longer imprison or kill a citizen without reason. Although the due process that an English citizen had to go through before being imprissond could improve, it was still a major advancement in that it at least informed the accused person of why he was being arrested. In 1689, ten years after the Habeas Corpus Act was put into place, the English Bill of Rights was adopted.
The regime in control must shield the right to life, liberty and property. When Hospers states, “libertarians support all such legislation as will protect human beings against the use of force by others, for example, laws against killing, attempted killing, maiming, beating, and All kinds of physical violence”, he shows this to be true (Velasquez 677). Basically, the government should be the force acting against negative crime committed from one person to another. If the peace is kept mutual between the citizens in the society, the government should not be active at all. The property of a citizen should be kept in safety, Hospers says, “libertarians support legislation that protects the property rights of individuals against confiscation, nationalization, eminent domain, robbery, trespass, fraud and misinterpretation, patent and copyright, libel and slander” (Velasquez 677).
The gradual development of the UK constitution and the constitutional law becomes noticeable. It relates to the power and individual liberty i.e., the monarchs and the relationship of the monarchs and the commoners. Then, the monarchs had all power; nowadays, it is the commoners who have all the power. Scotland never really developed prisons until the 20th century. England and Wales however were different.
When a law does not seek to understand the circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain if a person is guilty of breaking the law. By flexibility one must not misunderstand that laws enforced will be subject to change depending on who the individual is, rather it will remain same for everyone. But the nature might undergo change subject to the right understanding as to why the law has been over ruled and if the reasoning is a plausible one, to be forgiven. By flexibility, one must not misunderstand that the enforcement of laws will be subject to change depending on who the individual is. The laws will rather remain the same for everyone but the