The case of Fisher v bell is a good example of the literal approach. A shopkeeper had a flickknife on display in his shop window, this was brought to the attention of he police and the man was arrested. He was charged with offering for sale a flickknife contrary to the Offensive weapons Act 1959. He was found not guilty of the offence although the weapon was clearly for sale. According to the law of contract the display of an article with a price on it is merely an invitation to buy it is not an offer of sale. By following the literal Rule the courts carried out the written wishes but not the intended will of Parliament. The golden Rule It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from. This means that if the judge thinks that the actual words of the Act are going to lead to an absurd conviction or acquittal that would not follow the intentions of the Act, then he may look for another possible meaning.
Indian political system - roger Darlington
Separation of Powers it is possible that the public may not get a fair and impartial trial because parliament could have to much influence over the judges. This in turn could give the government to much power (they are often the ones, which propose a new law. Parliament) and we may become a tyrannical society. The courts must follow the laws of Parliament and cannot ever challenge them if they think they are ineffective or ridiculous. The separation of Powers is an essential part of our unwritten constitution. To strengthen the separate role of the courts, judges are very well paid and their salaries are not subject to parliamentary review which helps to protect them from politically influenced pressure. They also have excellent job security so that they are able to pass judgement on everyone who breaks the law including those in power, without fear of losing their jobs. There are three different approaches to statutory interpretation the literal Rule, the golden Rule and the mischief Rule. Here are some examples short of each; The literal Rule, lord Esher, in 1892, said If the words of an Act are clear you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. This means that the. Courts must follow the laws passed by parliament, to the letter even if the interpretation were to bring about a ridiculous conviction or acquittal.
Parliamentary sovereignty And, statutory Interpretation Essay, research Paper, parliament can make or unmake any law whatever and nobody can challenge or set aside the will of Parliament. This" is a very short but to the point explanation for Parliamentary sovereignty. This means that Parliament is answerable to no one and can make new laws, abolish old ones and adapt existing ones as they go along. However the sovereignty. Parliament is questionable since we joined the european Union because we would have to adhere to any ruling laid down by european law even if it should go against the will of Parliament. The house of, commons and The house of Lords make up two thirds of Parliament. There is a third power, The judiciary, which is a totally separate body that is in place to implement and enforce the legislature apple that. This has to be a completely stand-alone establishment with no ties or connection to parliament.
The government must do what they have to do in order to attract new voters and to keep previous voters. Therefore some would argue that maybe not largely, but to some degree parliament isnt fully sovereign. Assessing the arguments for against Parliaments loss of sovereignty. There are many arguments to support the idea for example the Prime minister exercising a margaret great deal of uncontrolled power or mainly the membership of the european Union which indicates a great loss in sovereignty. There are also arguments against such as the ability to leave the eu or the eu having jurisdiction in certain areas. To a certain extent, the arguments against the idea of Parliament not being sovereign are more significant than the arguments for. Although implications of the eu suggest that the uk isnt sovereign, the uk still has sovereignty because they are able to leave the Union. Taking this into account and all other arguments. It can be argued that ultimate political and Legal sovereignty still lies in the hands of Parliament.
For example, if in the next general elections david Cameron and the conservatives come into office, they are not bound by the decisions made by labour previously. They are allowed to execute new laws that may or may not differ to those originally set out by labour. They can come out of the eu, take away any devolved power, change laws because any government are legally and therefore politically sovereign. On the other hand, political sovereignty doesnt always lie in the hands of Parliament. Although on most occasions it does, there comes a time where sovereignty lies in the hands of the people. Living in a democracy, citizens have the right to vote, they have the right to vote for elected representatives to govern on their behalf and In the best interest of the country. During the time when elections are running, political sovereignty is transferred to the hands of the people.
The father of consumer sovereignty — crooked Timber
Fusion of powers also indicates that the government must be drawn from Parliament either the commons or the lords. In other words, all members of the government must also be members of one of the two houses. Parliament is sovereign because the government are accountable to parliament, the work of the pm and cabinet are under constant scrutiny, either through select committees are simple Prime ministers question resume time. However, its argued that Parliament dont have sovereignty internet due to the fact that the Prime minister exercises sovereignty on his own. By convention, the pm exercises the prerogative powers of the monarchy.
Although its argued that he uses this function undemocratically. This undermines Parliamentary sovereignty because the Prime minister can exercise power without the support of Parliament or even his Cabinet ministers. An example of this is Blairs decision to go to war with Iraq, we witness his presidential style of governing which resulted to the resignation of Robin cook and Clare Short. Parliament is argued to no longer be sovereign because key decisions which affect all citizens are made by the Prime minister himself without the real need of consulting Parliament or gaining mass approval. Therefore it can be argued that Parliament as a political establishment is no longer truly sovereign. Due to the nature of our uncodified constitution, we have no single authoritative document which we are bound by, the fact that our laws are not entrenched provides Parliament with the highest form of political sovereignty because they can amend or remove any previous piece. Government are not bound by its predecessors.
Any national laws that conflict with eu regulations are dealt in the ecj where they can overrule a decision of any supreme uk courts. We witness this in the case of re tachographs where eu regulations to have tachographs fitted in certain vehicles were not enforced. Parliament had to implement the law and companies were forced to install tachographs into vehicles. Another example that confirmed the supremacy of European Union Law over national low over areas where the eu has competence is the case of Factortame. Spanish fishing merchants appealed against restrictions imposed by on them by the uk government merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the house of Lords consequently were obliged to rule in favour of Factortame meaning that in effect it struck down the Act, this indicates that sovereignty.
In contrast to this, sovereignty is gained because parliament can repeal the european Communities Act 1972, more simply parliament have the ability to leave the european Union. In that sense, political sovereignty is sustained because although the implications of the eu were the main cause of the erosion of sovereignty, theres nothing in our constitution which suggests that Parliament do not have the power to leave the. However in saying this, although legally parliament can leave, politically it is very unlikely especially considering how complex it would be to disentangle the uk from the eu and also how damaging withdrawal would be economically and to the uk reputation within Europe. Unlike the usa a main feature of the uks political system is the fusion of powers where the Executive, legislature and Judiciary work closely together. The Prime minister and Cabinet work with other MPs and Lords to enforce effective laws. Parliament are the only political establishment in the uk who propose, scrutinise and implement laws, the legislative role lies within Parliament.
Diy wedding Invitations diy invitation Paper, kits supplies
However, sovereignty is gained because the same way parliament gave writing power, they can take the power back. We witness this power being exercised in Northern Ireland where they went against the good Friday agreement to disarm all weapons. Parliament took away their power and returned it when they believed it was necessary. As with all delegated sovereignty, parliament are able to return that sovereignty because they have the ultimate write political power. Referring back to the membership of the eu, certain factors of membership indicate that the uk has lost a lot of its sovereignty. For example, in the uk apart from the house of Lords recently known as the supreme court the high court is the highest court in the English Legal System. Due to the membership of the eu, the ecj formally known as the european court Of Justice remains at the top of the hierarchy.
In 1997 referendums were held on whether Scotland should have their own Parliament or whether Wales should have their own assembly. The majority of the public voted yes and the government put it into action. Although it would be highly undemocratic to not do so, parliamentary sovereignty Is retained in a sense that results of referendums are not binding on the government. They still have ultimate political authority and therefore have the power to disregard the result of the referendum. Never the less, in order to become warrior favourable in the public eye and to keep the proposal of increased political participation through the wider use of referendums set out in Blairs and the labour partys manifesto. Parliament transferred extensive powers to elected assemblies and executives in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. With any distribution of power it means giving away a certain degree of sovereignty. Parliament has lost legal sovereignty because northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have the power to implement laws in their own regions and takes away some of the role of Westminister.
hire Writer, we will write a custom essay sample on uk parliament Is no longer sovereign specifically for you. For only.38.9/page, hire Writer, examples previously mentioned such as employment law or others such as competition control, regional development are all fully in the hands of the. This undermines Parliamentary sovereignty because decisions made around those areas arent in the hands of Parliament. Never the less, there are certain areas where virtually no jurisdiction has been passed to the eu, areas such as education, health provision, social security, law and order are all areas where the uk have full control over, these are all subject to the uks. The eu would be unable to implement laws and regulations which apply to all the cultural, religious views or different political systems in eu member states. In correlation with this, the areas where jurisdiction has passed are all areas which Parliament have agreed to give away sovereignty. Therefore it is argued that to a certain extent Parliament has retained some sovereignty. In the years of 1997 and onwards the labour government set out referendums on the devolvement of power in regards to their constitutional reforms.
This essay will assess the arguments for and against. The main argument which indicates the idea of a decrease in Parliamentary sovereignty is the uks membership to the european Union in 1973. After passing the european Communities Act in 1972 certain policy areas have been passed over to the. Areas which jurisdiction have passed include; trade, agriculture, fishing, employment law; these are areas that affect the relationship between the uk and other member states. For example the eu control employment law because as a citizen of the uk we are directly affected by the implications of the eu and in doing so have the freedom movement, we are allowed to move and work to any member state without visa. Its presentation argued that Parliament has lost sovereignty because theyve devolved certain powers to the. Although there are certain areas where the eu can only influence.
Resume - free sample resumes
Before evaluating whether or not Parliament is sovereign, its important to define what sovereignty means. Sovereignty can be split into two; political and legal. Legal sovereignty is the ultimate power to make laws which will be enforced within with the state. Members of Parliament and the Prime minister have ultimate legal power because they propose and enforce legislation. Citizens have no legal sovereignty because they dont play a role in the legislative function even though pressure group activity may influence decisions. Political sovereignty is where real political power lies, and depending on the situation political sovereignty doesnt always lie within Parliament. Critics have argued that due to recent changes, parliament is no longer truly sovereign.